Comedian Dave Hughes has responded to reports that convicted mushroom killer Erin Patterson has been prescribed taxpayer-funded Ozempic weight-loss injections while serving her sentence, as she simultaneously awaits the outcome of an appeal against her murder convictions.
Dave Hughes has issued a reality check for Erin Patterson following reports that the mushroom killer has been prescribed taxpayer-funded Ozempic weight loss injections while in custody. Patterson, 51, is currently serving her sentence at Melbourne’s Dame Phyllis Frost Centre while awaiting the outcome of an appeal against her convictions. It was revealed on Tuesday morning that the self-confessed “binge eater” had recently been approved to receive the weight loss drug, reportedly because she is “isolated and unable to exercise.”
Patterson’s convictions and sentence
Patterson was sentenced to a minimum non-parole period of 33 years over the deaths of three family members who consumed death cap mushrooms served in beef Wellingtons at her home in Leongatha, in Victoria’s Gippsland region, in July 2023. She was found guilty of murdering her in-laws, Don and Gail Patterson, along with Gail’s sister, Heather Wilkinson. Heather’s husband, Ian Wilkinson, survived after becoming critically ill, and Patterson was separately convicted of his attempted murder.
Patterson is currently held in solitary confinement for at least 22 hours a day at the maximum-security prison, with reports indicating she spends around 22 to 23 hours daily in her cell, severely limiting her ability to exercise.
The Ozempic decision explained
Victoria’s Department of Justice and Community Safety has defended the decision to provide weight-loss medication to prisoners, stating that medications are prescribed by clinicians only where there is a clear medical need, including to help prevent serious conditions such as type 2 diabetes. The department has not disclosed Patterson’s individual medical details, meaning the specific dosage, duration of treatment and medical diagnosis behind her prescription remain undisclosed publicly. Reports indicate her Ozempic treatment began only in recent weeks, rather than having been provided throughout her imprisonment to date.
Patterson is not the only Victorian prisoner reported to have received the drug. Alicia Schiller, another female prisoner serving a 16-year sentence for murder, has also reportedly been prescribed Ozempic, alongside taxpayer-funded medical treatment for obesity-related health problems, including surgery involving her eyelids. The Department of Justice has linked this broader approach to prison healthcare to coronial recommendations made following the death of a prisoner from an obesity-related medical condition.
Political criticism
The disclosure has fuelled a wider public debate over whether prisoners should receive publicly funded treatments beyond emergency care. Victorian Shadow Police Minister Brad Battin has been particularly critical, condemning the decision to provide Patterson with taxpayer-funded weight-loss medication. The Victorian government has maintained its position that prisoners do not receive such medication as a matter of privilege, stressing that all prescriptions are determined by medical professionals based on clinical need rather than any other consideration.
Where Patterson’s appeal stands
The disclosure comes as Patterson’s legal challenge continues to make its way through the courts. Her appeal was heard by three judges of Victoria’s Court of Appeal on 19 and 20 August, with the judges reserving their decision, meaning no ruling had been issued as of the latest reports.
Patterson is challenging her convictions on seven separate grounds. Among other arguments, her lawyers claim that the jury’s accommodation arrangements created a serious risk to the integrity of the trial, specifically raising concerns that jurors were housed at the same Gippsland hotel as police officers and prosecution lawyers during proceedings. The defence has also challenged the admission of evidence relating to Patterson’s phone and location data, her online activity researching mushrooms, and her participation in a true-crime Facebook group.
Prosecutors have simultaneously launched their own appeal, arguing that Patterson’s sentence was too lenient. They are seeking to have the possibility of parole removed entirely, or the non-parole period increased to such an extent that she would likely die in prison. As a result, the Court of Appeal is currently weighing two separate and competing appeals: Patterson’s bid to overturn her convictions, and the prosecution’s bid to secure a considerably harsher sentence.
