source : the age
A clash between footy arch rivals Carlton and Collingwood is at the centre of accusations from Erin Patterson’s legal team that protected information on jury deliberations was leaked to the media.
New documents show the mushroom murderer’s defence team claim a number of potential irregularities occurred during the jury’s seven-day sequestration at a popular Gippsland hotel while they were deciding Patterson’s fate.
Communications between defence solicitors Doogue & George and Juries Commissioner Paul Dore, released by the Court of Appeal on Friday, show Patterson’s team flagged concerns on July 29, 2025 – 22 days after the jury’s guilty verdict on three murders and one attempted murder.
Chief among them was that there may have been leaks to the media about the jury’s stay at the hotel, either by a member of the jury themselves or the “keepers” tasked with guarding them, after a story appeared in the Daily Mail.
“There was also an article published by The Daily Mail that can only be based on discussions with the jurors, either directly or indirectly, including mention of one of the jurors being allowed to watch an AFL game separately with a jury keeper,” solicitor Bill Doogue wrote to Dore.
The published story was a profile of the hotel and information about the jury’s stay. Journalists from the outlet had been staying in the same hotel, along with other news media groups.
“There was a Collingwood supporter on the jury, a big one at that, but the jury failed to reach a verdict and they were holed up on the night of the big game,” the story read.
“However, the Collingwood supporter was granted special access to watch the game on Kayo while under the supervision of a jury keeper.
“Even footy with its vast tentacles managed to reach inside the Erin Patterson murder trial.
“Unfortunately, another juror who supported a smaller club was denied permission to watch their team play, but that’s how influential Collingwood is.”
In his complaint letter to Dore, Doogue wrote: “This would, if true, add greatly to our concern as to how this information has got to the media.”
The match was Carlton versus Collingwood on the evening of July 4, 2025.
Patterson’s team also claimed in the communications with Dore that the jury keepers failed to inform the court that journalists were known to be staying in the same accommodation.
Instead, Patterson’s lawyers alleged the jury keepers withheld that information from the trial judge, Justice Christopher Beale, for six days until the jury accidentally ran into a pack of journalists and at least two prosecution lawyers while checking into the hotel on July 4, 2025.
The jurors’ previous accommodation had been prebooked with an influx of visitors to the area caused by the 2025 National Table Tennis Championships.
The correspondence released by the Court of Appeal shows Patterson’s lawyers wrote to the Juries Commissioner on two occasions demanding an investigation be launched into the circumstances of the jury’s stay, following reporting by this masthead.
“The correspondence that both we and the Court were provided with by the OPP on the day of the verdict did not contain all the information that the prosecution and Homicide Squad were privy to about what was happening in the hotel in terms of who was staying there and when they arrived,” Patterson’s lawyers wrote on July 15, demanding any CCTV footage be secured by the Juries Commissioner.
Sequestered jurors must surrender their mobile phones and electronic devices and are not allowed access to free-to-air television or any news media. The rules state that they are confined to their hotel rooms when not deliberating in a special room at court or eating together in an isolated dining space.
Patterson’s appeal last month heard there was no CCTV footage available for the defence to review for “irregularities” in the jury’s sequestration.
Barrister Richard Edney, for Patterson, said it created an “evidentiary vacuum”.
There is no suggestion that any of the police officers, prosecutors or members of the media behaved inappropriately or attempted to influence the jury, but the “fundamental irregularity” of the situation has become a key plank of Patterson’s appeal.
“A suggestion that the criminal justice process could or should tolerate jury sequestration in the same lodging as members of the prosecution team, the police informant (and arguably others) is unsustainable,” the defence wrote in its appeal argument.
On Monday, this masthead reported Patterson’s lawyers twice demanded the Juries Commissioner move to secure potential evidence – including CCTV and phone data – but were rebuffed.
Last week, the court heard that there was now no CCTV available for undisclosed reasons.
The Director of Public Prosecutions Brendan Kissane, KC, has argued that concerns about the integrity of the jury sequestration “appear informed by unattributed, unverified (and seemingly inaccurate) media reporting of unknown levels of hearsay”.
