There was always going to be an appeal

in the "Mushroom" case. Men are much more likely to commit murder than women. Men commit 85% to 90% of known murders. It is also interesting to note women who commit murder almost always do so in an "intimate" setting. In other words the victim is likely to be a partner or family member. 

In the case of Erin Patterson, the woman found guilty of murdering three people by feeding them beef Wellington containing death cap mushrooms,  extended family members were involved but the intimacy was at one step removed. That alone makes it a little more unusual. 

I am not watching the appeal as such. Most of what goes in a court of law is, to be blunt, dull. It is not "exciting" in the way a television series will try and suggest. I am, for the benefit of some students, keeping an eye on what is going on. So yesterday I looked at the grounds the defence is making their grounds for appeal.

There are apparently seven grounds for appeal by the defence. These are things the defence thinks are "wrong in law" or "not fair" or "a mistake". The defence is raising several which relate to the actual evidence presented. I do not know enough to comment on those, nor do I wish to comment. I can comment on a couple of issues.

The first of these is the claim the jury should not have been staying in the same hotel as any of the prosecution or the media.  The thing to note here is that there can be no communication between them. The defence is attempting to argue that it is a "fundamental irregularity" and that "it has fatally undermined the integrity of the verdicts".  More than once a case has been thrown out of court because a juror has discussed, searched and even spoken to someone they should not have spoken to but it has to be shown to have happened. It cannot be a matter of "we think having them the jury and others involved in the same case in the same place influenced their decision".  Jurors who are sequestered are kept separate by court officials and the matter was raised at the time of the trial. Will that succeed as a ground of appeal? It is unlikely. If it did then it would not be cause for the case to be dismissed but could result in a retrial. 

The other interesting thing being argued as a ground for appeal is that the defence is arguing the defendant's right to silence was "compromised". Why are they arguing this? A defendant in a murder trial does not have to give evidence. The defence is arguing that the prosecution attempted to bring in evidence that was ruled inadmissible. The defence now says they had to bring in that evidence instead. They are claiming this forced the defendant to give evidence in her own defence but they apparently agree the evidence itself was of a speculative nature. Yes, the defence can sometimes bring in evidence ruled inadmissible for the prosecution to bring in. Choosing to use it as a ground for claiming the defendant had to give evidence may alone be enough to cause this to fail.

The treatment of the defendant in the witness box is being appealed too. There is a suggestion here of "here is this poor woman being accused of murder and you are being nasty to her". That is not the way the law works. If you give evidence in any trial you have to expect to be treated harshly by the side which has the most to lose. You can be sure the KC working for the defendant came down hard on every member of the prosecution's team.  

There are other matters also being claimed as grounds for appeal. They relate more closely to the case. 

There are three possibilities here/

The appeal succeeds and the defendant is found "not guilty". This is highly unlikely.

The appeal succeeds and the defendant is granted a new trial. This is possible but there will be serious issues with this. Finding a jury without a knowledge of the case would be well nigh impossible.

The appeal fails. The defendant stays in prison. That might lead to an attempt to find a means of appealing to the High Court. The issue of the sequestering of the jury might have some possibilities there but again it would likely result in an order for a retrial.

And on the other side the prosecution is appealing the sentence. Thirty-three years or life? 

I wonder about the other family members - especially the two children.