Jurors hotel booking bungle caused mushroom murder trial havoc

The jury in the Erin Patterson triple murder case was moved to new accommodation after prosecutors, homicide investigators and a sizeable media pack descended on the same small-town hotel.

In shambolic scenes, the placement of the jury by the Supreme Court of Victoria in the same property as police, journalists and prosecutors led to people hiding in doorways to avoid contact, skipping breakfast and guests being forced to move rooms to avoid disturbing jury members in the final days of their deliberations.

The revelation came on a day of developments in the mushroom murder trial, with news Sydney-based shock jocks Kyle Sandilands and Jackie O may face possible prosecution for contempt, popular food author Nagi Maehashi commenting on the case for the first time and members of the Patterson and Wilkinson families remaining holed up and maintaining a dignified silence.

During its week-long deliberations in the biggest criminal trial of the decade, the 12-member jury was placed at a hotel in Traralgon.

However, the accommodation issue came to a head when bookings for the 2025 Table Tennis Australia national championships displaced others associated with the case and, by terrible coincidence, the parties all ended up at the same hotel.

Emails released to this masthead on behalf of Supreme Court judge Christopher Beale show the measures the court took to ensure the jury’s impartiality was not accidentally compromised by contact with parties to the case during their deliberations.

Loading

“On Saturday afternoon, I was informed by my tipstaff that the informant and two prosecution solicitors have been staying at the same hotel as the jury. He also told me that there has been no interaction between them and the jury. The jury have had a separate floor to themselves and have eaten their meals in a conference room separate from other guests of the hotel. But all guests use the same entrance at the hotel,” the email sent on July 7 said.

“Coincidentally, on Saturday night the jurors moved to a different hotel in a different town where they will be staying for the rest of this week.”

“I understand that there is a shortage of accommodation in the district, but it is obviously undesirable for any of the parties or the informant to be staying at the same hotel as the jury.”

Hours later, the prosecution responded.

“We confirm that the informant was staying at that hotel for the duration of the trial, and we only became aware last Thursday that the jury had commenced staying there. He believed he was staying in a different wing of the hotel and was using a different entrance, and he took steps to avoid common areas from the point that he became aware that they were there.”

“In relation to the prosecution solicitors, the prosecution team’s usual accommodation was no longer available for our use as of Friday last week, so we had booked that hotel for the Friday night for prosecution counsel and solicitors.

“When we became aware that the jury were staying there, we attempted to move everyone but, due to availability issues in the area, we were only able to move counsel. We confirm that the prosecution solicitors did not interact with the jury at any stage and also took steps to avoid any incidental contact in common areas.”

Loading

“The informant and prosecution team are no longer staying at that hotel.”

A Victoria Police spokesperson said that “at no time” did homicide squad detectives come into contact with the jury.

The OPP said members of the prosecution team, excluding Crown prosecutors, stayed for one night at the motel where the jury was sequestered and “did not interact with them”.

Patterson’s legal representatives, Doogue & George, declined to comment on whether they were aware of the accommodation arrangements set up by the court or the presence of police and prosecutors.

The defence also made no response to the email chain, according to the Supreme Court.

There is no suggestion of any impropriety by any of the parties who stayed at the hotel.

But a veteran criminal lawyer said it was a “terrible look” that the jury was sequestered in a hotel filled with people and officials involved in the trial.

“It just doesn’t look right. Something could have accidentally gone wrong – some kind of interaction that just had to look like it was inappropriate to cause chaos,” the lawyer said, who asked not to be identified because of his employment.

“If it was the defence that had gotten rooms in the same hotel as the jury, the police and prosecutors would be loudly protesting to the judge. It’s just not normal.”

The day before the verdict, the jury was permitted to escape its enforced isolation – and the chaotic scenes at the hotel, where they were not allowed to use the gym or onsite bar – with a trip to a local winery.

Avoiding inadvertent contact between jurors, those involved in the case, media and court watchers has been a significant concern during the trial given the small size of Morwell, with a population less than 15,000.

Accommodation was hard-fought over in Morwell and Traralgon due to the sheer number of people who were required to relocate to the area for the trial, who often ran into each other at local cafes or restaurants.

Patterson on Monday was found guilty of three counts of murder for the deaths of Don and Gail Patterson and Heather Wilkinson and one count of attempted murder for Ian Wilkinson who she poisoned with death cap mushrooms.

After the verdict, it could be revealed that KIIS breakfast radio hosts Sandilands and Jackie O faced possible contempt charges for comments made on their program during the trial.

Media reporting on, and others commenting on, trials are prevented from publishing information that may prejudice the hearing, under sub judice contempt laws.

The outspoken duo may have gone too far when giving their own early verdicts on the Patterson case on June 16, venturing into discussions that may have touched on material declared off-limits while the trial was in progress.

That afternoon, before the jury returned to court after the lunch break, Justice Beale disclosed he would refer the matter to the Office of Public Prosecutions for possible contempt proceedings and warned the media that the court would continue to keep close watch.

“I encourage all commentators to engage their brains before they open their mouths, as they may otherwise land themselves and their organisations in hot water,” he said.

The penalty for contempt can range from fines to jail time.

Lunch survivor Ian Wilkinson has still made no public statements since the verdict. Instead, a note on behalf of his Baptist congregation in Korumburra appeared on the noticeboard outside the church.

“We all greatly miss Heather, Don, and Gail, whether we were friends for a short time or over 20 years. They were very special people who loved God and loved to bless others,” the statement read.

Outside Wilkinson’s weatherboard home, a sign expressed the desire for privacy.

It was a sentiment echoed at the homes of Erin Patterson’s estranged husband, Simon Patterson, in the fringes of leafy Korumburra, and on the front door of the home of her sister, Ceinwen Scutter, in Melbourne’s south-east.

“No entry without appointment,” the sign on Simon’s fence read.

“You are trespassing. If you do not leave immediately, the police will be called,” warned the handwritten one on Scutter’s door.

Meanwhile, Maehashi put a statement on her social media after revelations during the trial that Patterson had used a beef Wellington recipe from her popular cookbook for the lethal lunch.

“It is of course upsetting to learn that one of my recipes – possibly the one I’ve spent more hours perfecting than any other – something I created to bring joy and happiness is entangled in a tragic situation. Other than that, I have nothing to say and I won’t be talking,” Maehashi’s statement said.

Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.