Mushroom killer Erin Patterson's 'catastrophic' hotel claim dismissed by prosecutors for having 'no substance'

Prosecutors have poured cold water on Erin Patterson’s bid to overturn her murder convictions, insisting claims that housing the jury in the same hotel as police and prosecutors was a 'catastrophic failure' are completely baseless.Supreme Court of Victoria Justice Christopher Beale sentenced Patterson to life in prison on September 8, but set a non-parole period of 33 years.On Thursday, the now 51-year-old appeared again in the Supreme Court of Appeal from the Dame Phyllis Frost Centre via video link.In launching her appeal on Wednesday, her barrister Richard Edney took aim at the court's decision to house the jury in the same hotel as police and prosecutors when they retired to deliver their verdict.'I'll start with ground one, and your honours will see that that ground is expressed that a fundamental irregularity occurred while the jury were sequestered, that has fatally undermined the integrity of the verdicts and requires the quashing of the convictions and an order for a retrial so that justice can not only be done but be seen to be done,' he said.Mr Edney claimed the jury's placement in a hotel alongside journalists, police and prosecutors was unfair.'We would describe the sequestration and what occurred during it as catastrophic, and in our submission, what has occurred here is that there has been a fundamental failure to comply with the dictum already referred to,' he said.It was a submission shot down in flames later that day, when Director of Public Prosecutions Brendan Kissane KC dismissed Patterson's number one ground for a re-trial. Top-class country hotel Bridges on Argyle became the epicentre of the Patterson trial'Far from being some sort of catastrophic failure, to use the words that Mr Edney used, there’s no evidence in our submission to support this ground,' he said.The jury in the high-profile death cap mushroom trial was sequestered at a hotel in the Morwell area while deliberating.Members of the prosecution team, reporters and a key police witness were also staying there for a period.Mr Kissane argued the evidence showed the system worked exactly as intended.Jury keepers had been sworn in open court and reported to the trial judge that there had been 'no interaction' between the jurors and any other person.'The issue is whether there was communication between this jury and any other person,' Mr Kissane told the court.'The evidence as it stands points towards there being no communication, and once the court accepts that, then there’s no irregularity in this situation, let alone a fundamental irregularity that goes to the root of the trial.'He rejected any suggestion that simply sharing a hotel entrance or the possibility of jurors glancing out a window amounted to improper contact. Director of Public Prosecutions Brendan Kissane KC dismissed Patterson's number one ground for a re-trial. Ian Wilkinson (left), the only guest to survive the toxic mushroom lunch with Erin Patterson, and Detective Leading Senior Constable Stephen Eppingstall leave the Supreme Court of Victoria on Wednesday 'The idea that contact includes looking out a window and seeing somebody passing by, in our submission, just doesn’t work,' Mr Kissane said.'It’s directed at communication ... not simply eyeballing somebody.'The jurors had their own floor and ate meals in a separate conference room, with keepers remaining on duty throughout.Mr Kissane accepted the arrangement was 'obviously undesirable' and that trial Justice Beale would almost certainly have blocked it if asked in advance.'I’ve got no doubt that if it was said to the judge, "Look, we want to stay in the same hotel as the jury," the judge would have said "no",' he conceded.But Mr Kissane stressed it happened 'accidentally' due to limited local accommodation and that no actual irregularity occurred.'There’s no evidence whatsoever that any member of the jury spoke or had the opportunity to speak to any other person apart from the jury ... and the jury keeper. Let alone anyone from the prosecution team,' he said.A fair-minded observer aware of all the safeguards—separate dining, continuous supervision by sworn keepers, and the jurors’ own oaths - would not conclude anything had gone wrong, prosecutors argued. Erin Patterson as she appeared on Wednesday Patterson's legal team enter the court on Wednesday The appeal hearing will continue throughout Thursday, with prosecutors expected to argue Patterson's sentence was 'manifestly inadequate'.Top Melbourne criminal lawyer George Balot, of Balot Reilly Criminal Lawyers, told Daily Mail she could face even further time behind bars if unsuccessful.'So if she puts in an appeal against conviction and she's successful ... and a retrial is ordered, some of the evidence will be played on video for a new jury,' he said when the appeal was launched.'So not all the witnesses will have to go through the same process. In addition to that, evidence that might have been excluded in previous trials might not be excluded on this trial.'So it's very important to keep that in mind and, you know, be careful as to what you wish for.'