What Happened
- In July 2023, a lunch at Erin Patterson’s home in Victoria, turned deadly when guests were served Beef Wellington allegedly laced with death cap mushrooms, a known lethal fungus.
- Three people died, Patterson’s estranged in-laws.
- A fourth guest, Heather’s husband, survived after extensive hospitalisation.
The Trial
- Erin Patterson was charged with three counts of murder and one count of attempted murder.
- She pleaded not guilty, insisting the poisoning was a terrible accident, not intentional.
- The trial took place in Victoria, before the Supreme Court of Victoria, presided over by Justice Christopher Beale.
- The trial lasted for approximately 9 to 10 weeks.
Key Evidence & Contentions
- Prosecution accused Patterson of foraging or sourcing death cap mushrooms, drying them (evidence of a food dehydrator), and knowingly including them in the meal.
- Defence argued there was no intent to kill, being that the inclusion of the mushrooms was accidental, that she “panicked” after the deaths, and lied about a cancer diagnosis (allegedly to lure victims) and the dehydrator because she was overwhelmed.
- There were also issues about how she handled evidence and phone data, delays, and possible attempts to cover up.
Verdict & Sentence
- On 7 July 2025, the jury found Erin Patterson guilty of three murders and one attempted murder.
- On 8 September 2025, she was sentenced to life in prison with a non-parole period of 33 years.
Legal & Public Interest Issues
- The case hinged heavily on proving intent, being whether Erin Patterson intentionally served death cap mushrooms or whether it was accidental. This involves examining her actions before, during, and after the lunch.
- The existence and disposal of a food dehydrator, claims about sourcing the mushrooms, and inconsistencies in her testimony played major roles.
- The effect on family, the relationship strain with her estranged husband, and statements from her children were part of the narrative, both for prosecution and defence.
The processes of separation and divorce can often be touch emotionally, with nowadays a lot of our lives being documented online. From Instagram stories and Facebook status updates to TikTok videos and direct messages, what you upload onto the internet has the potential to be admissible in court.
In Australia, the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) obliges courts to take into account all the available evidence when making a decision regarding property settlement, parenting and spousal maintenance. That goes for social media post as well.
So Can Social Media be Evidence?
Yes. Courts throughout Australia have received and accepted social media posts, photos, and messages as evidence in family law proceedings. Examples include:
- Posts on reckless expenditure or gambling, applicable in property disputes.
- Images or posts proving drug or alcohol abuse, relevant in parenting cases.
- Intimidatory messages/posts are used to demonstrate family violence or intimidation.
Even things you believe or perceive as “private” may be screenshotted, subpoenaed, or posted if they are relevant to the case.
Common Issues that are Raised Online
- Badmouthing and ex-partner online: This can be raised as evidence of hostility, particularly in parenting disputes.
- Deleting accounts or posts – these practices can be perceived as attempt to hide evidence.
- Sharing Children’s photo’s or details publicly: Such incidences can raise questions about judgement or safeguarding.
Practical Tips
- Think before you post: Assume anything you share on the internet has the ability to show up in front of a judge due to the public nature of the internet.
- Avoid discussing a Case online: Never post about any ongoing proceedings.
- Get Legal Advice: If your concerned about posts made by yourself or your ex-partner, make sure you seek legal advice as soon as possible.
Conclusion
Australian Family Law has the ability to take into account social media in proceedings. This could be a challenging ordeal for many. So if you have any legal enquiries on this topic don’t be afraid to contact us.
Within the evolving 21st century, technology infiltrates human lives. From aiding in basic necessities such as reminders to help bridging the justice gap, technology is often perceived as helpful and revolutionary in improving processes.
However, a darker aspect that is often overlooked is the capacity for technology to facilitate abuse and violence. Coercive control has become more common place as a result of various technological advancements, such as deepfakes and hacking.
But what does coercive control look like? And why is our justice system failing to grapple and manage the implications and consequences of it on victims?
What does tech-based coercive control look like?
Coercive control is understood as patterns of abusive behavior which focus on the deprivation of a person’s independence and autonomy. Often, this dynamic is observed under family and domestic violence situations, where a dominating presence restricts and monitors another person’s actions meticulously.
However, unlike physical coercive control, technology facilitated coercive control is more subtle and targeted- to the extent in which the victim may not realise that they are coerced or controlled. Some signs of tech-facilitated coercive control include:
- Making repeated abusive, threatening or unwanted messages or calls.
- Restricting access to Wi-Fi, email, banking service or another telecommunication.
- Using cameras or recording devices to spy on the victim.
With the advent and widespread use of social media, technology-based coercive control has shifted subtly in how it looks. Some other signs of tech-facilitated coercive control include:
- Creating harmful, fake posts about victims
- Making, sharing, or threatening to share intimate images or videos of victims without the victim’s permission to control, blackmail or humiliate the victim.
- Tracking the victim’s social media usage or location.
- Restricting who the victim follows or messages.
Changes to the Privacy Act 1988 introduced a statutory tort for serious privacy invasions as of 10 June 2025- in which the misuse of information such as fake social media posts and images may be addressed in courts. This change may provide an avenue for victims to pursue justice for technology-facilitated coercive control. However, there is a gap in the justice system addressing these issues.
Issue with the justice system in handling tech-based coercive control.
A report by the Australian Institute of Criminology in October 2024 reported significant barriers in accessing the justice system. Key barriers that were identified:
- A lack of understanding of Technology-facilitated Coercive Control amongst first responders such as police and emergency responders
- Inconsistent and poor police response such as victim-blaming and inaction in reducing the harms and risks
- A focus on individual incidents rather than tracking patterns
- Lack of access within services to technological capability
These barriers often limit victims in recognising and accessing help- thus placing psychological distress upon them, requiring long-term recovery that is currently not provided by the justice system. This often creates more complex issues as illustrated by the report, where physical and financial abuse become commonplace in such situations. As a result, there is a call for greater support and awareness in the elements of technology-based coercive control.
What can you do?
If you think you or someone you know might be experiencing technology-based coercive control, here are steps to take:
- Contact a confidential support service:
- Please contact:
- 1800RESPECT
- 1800 737 732 (available 24/7)
- 1800respect.org.au
- eSafety Commissioner
- https://www.esafety.gov.au/report/what-you-can-report-to-esafety
- You can report the most serious online abuse and harmful content to eSafety. The eSafety website also has detailed information on tech-facilitated coercive control and on how to create an online safety plan.
- Men’s Referral Service
- 1800 943 539
- mrs.org.au
- Kids Help Line
- https://kidshelpline.com.au/
- 1800 55 1800
- 1800RESPECT
- Please contact:
Australia wide free 24/7, confidential and private counselling service specifically for children and young people aged 5 to 25 years.
- Gather evidence:
- Save, screenshot, record, take photos and backup any evidence of the abuse. Have multiple copies available in different locations and track a timeline of events. This will help you if you wish to pursue charge against the person.
- Contact directory services.
- Technology-based coercive control is a vague, undefined area, where it has been recognised as an area where some victims do not recognise that they are subjected to such abuse. If you are doubtful as to whether you require help, there are services which explore your situation in confidential and non-responsive places. These services can be found at women-based services in universities, counselling at schools or these services:
- FULLSTOP AUSTRALIA:
- https://fullstop.org.au/
- info@fullstop.org.au
- 180038557
- Knowmore
- FULLSTOP AUSTRALIA:
- Technology-based coercive control is a vague, undefined area, where it has been recognised as an area where some victims do not recognise that they are subjected to such abuse. If you are doubtful as to whether you require help, there are services which explore your situation in confidential and non-responsive places. These services can be found at women-based services in universities, counselling at schools or these services:
Remember – in an emergency, always call 000 for urgent help.
If you or someone you know wish to discuss this issue further, then please do not hesitate to contact us on 02 8999 9809.
Introduction
Over the past decade, the world and in particular Australians have turned to digital investments such as cryptocurrencies and non-fungible tokens (NFT). While these investments can be lucrative to individuals, they raise new and complex issues when relationships break down. Australian family law requires all assets which includes digital assets to be disclosed and considered during a property settlement.
Under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the Court assesses the total asset pool of the parties. This includes traditional property such as homes or cars as well as emerging classes of digital property.
What are Digital Assets?
Digital assets are:
- Property: This means they are treated as capable of ownership, value and transfer.
- Part of the Asset Pool: They must be disclosed and included in the calculation of net assets.
- Subject to Division: The same principles applied to bank accounts or shares are applied to digital assets.
Challenges in Valuing Digital Assets
Although treated the same as other assets they present unique difficulties such as:
- Volatility – The value of Bitcoin can fluctuate dramatically within days and as a result courts require expert evidence or a valuate at a specific point in time.
- Proof of Ownership – Digital assets tend to be stored in digital wallets and a lot of these are concealed which tend to raise complexities and issues in terms of non-disclosure or asset hiding.
- Tracing Transactions – Digital assets have the unique ability to be transferred to other accounts very quickly, in some cases, instantly. This could make it hard to track such assets.
Consequences of non-disclosure
Any individual who fails to disclose any digital assets risks significant penalties. In extreme cases, hiding digital assets can even amount to criminal conduct, such as fraud or contempt of court.
What Should Parties Do?
For those going through a separation or divorce, there are a few considerations such as:
- Full Disclosure – Both parties must disclose all digital assets such as crypto holdings, wallets and NFTs.
- Legal Advice - Engage with family lawyers like us to get experienced advice on how to navigate the disclosure and division of digital assets.
Conclusion
In Australia, Cryptocurrencies and NFTs are considered property under Australian Family Law. They must be disclosed, valued and divided within a property settlement just like traditional assets.
Cryptocurrencies are becoming increasingly popular and utilised all over the world and especially in Australia. It has become something that can be purchased or transacted in a click of a button and in just a few seconds. With large amounts of businesses and individuals becoming involved in this space it is ever important for everyone to know and understand the legal obligations of using cryptocurrencies. In Australia cryptocurrencies are not recognised as legal tender but rather a form of property or investment asset. Hence, they are subject to Capital Gains Tax when sold or exchanged, just like taxes paid when a share is bought or sold.
Regulatory Frameworks
- ASIC
ASIC has a large influence in regulating and enforcing cryptocurrency legislation. They mainly attend businesses that provide cryptocurrency services, specifically in relation to businesses that facilitate crypto transactions and have ICO’s or initial coin offerings. - Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC)
AUSTRAC is more focused on any criminal activity that is conducted though the use of cryptocurrencies. It enforces legislation in regard to issues such as Anti-Money laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing laws.
Cryptocurrency Mining Laws
Aside from transacting cryptocurrencies, crypto mining has also become prevalent within society and so has more legal questions in relation to this. It is legal to mine crypto in Australia, however miners must recognise and be aware of tax, electricity and environmental legislation.
Future for Cryptocurrency Regulation
In mid-2025 ASIC will publish an updated INFO 225 sheet which will provide substantial information and clarification on how financial services laws will apply to financial assets. This will be supported by Digital Asset Platform (DAP) licensing framework which would essentially make crypto exchanges obliged to the same legislation and supervision as traditional financial entities. As seen the Australian government is acknowledging the increasing prevalence of Cryptocurrencies and are addressing the rising legal issues to predominantly ensure that consumers are kept safe and free from potential fraudulent activities.
Conclusion
Australian crypto regulations put a strong emphasis on legal compatibility on platforms to ensure they provide safe practices. This in turn has ensured consumer safety and these future plans will continue to make the entire cryptocurrency environment even safer.
Influencer marketing in Australia has increased by 11% year-on-year yet roughly 80% of Australian influencers surveyed by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) may be violating the law. Whether you are a small or large business, you want to make sure that your influencer marketing practices align with the legal system to keep up company goodwill and keep out of legal trouble. Below are some tips for brands to ensure they implement to ensure compliance with both influencers and the legal system.
1. Disclosure of your influencer marketing
Ensure that all your influencers clearly disclose the nature of their affiliation with your brand. Influencers are required to reveal any sponsored content and any benefits they have received in return for posting. This entails disclosing any business relationships to followers and including disclaimers in sponsored content. In Australia, there are fines and penalties for not disclosing.
2. Create an Influencer Marketing Agreement/Contract
A legally binding contract is a beneficial tool for both brands and content creators. Avoid sending out products and being ghosted by influencers by generating a contract that clearly sets out the deliverables expected of the Content Creator. This creates better communication between parties for the vision of the campaign as well as ensures that both parties uphold their end of the collaboration.
3. Industry Specific Compliance
The niche of your brand may alter the regulatory compliance measures that need to take place to remain legally valid. For example, financial influencers ‘Finfluencers’ must ensure that they comply with the financial regulatory compliance including but not limited to a financial services license, authorised representative status or a clear warning that they are not involved in promoting financial services. The Australian Influencer Marketing Council (AiMCO) released a code of conduct that may be a useful guide to understanding your niche.
4. Comply with Copyright of Content
Unless specified in a contract, the Intellectual Property (IP) of content made belongs to the Influencer. As a result, even if a customer has paid for the content, the influencer will still have legal ownership rights over it. Either negotiate with your influencers prior to the contract being formed or explicitly mention the promotional purposes of the content within your Influencer Marketing Contract to stay compliant with Copyright Laws.
Legal vigilance is a necessary part of success in the current digital space. Adhering to these legal guidelines not only protects your company from future lawsuits and fines, but it also increases credibility and confidence in the online market.
Allegations of family violence can significantly impact parenting matters before the Family Court. When these allegations arise, they are not just background details — they become central to the Court’s decision about what is in the best interests of the child.
Under the Family Law Act 1975, one of the primary considerations in parenting matters is the need to protect children from physical or psychological harm caused by abuse, neglect or exposure to family violence. In fact, the Court must give greater weight to this factor than to the benefit of a child having a relationship with both parents.
What Is Considered As Family Violence?
Family violence is not limited to physical harm. It includes coercive and controlling behaviour, verbal abuse, emotional manipulation, financial control, and exposing children to conflict. For example, a child who regularly witnesses shouting matches, threats, or aggression between their parents is considered to be exposed to family violence.
How Are Allegations Handled?
Once legal proceedings are underway, and family violence is raised, the Court may:
- Appoint an Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL) to represent the child’s best interests.
- Order a Family Report or psychological assessment.
- Place interim parenting arrangements that limit or supervise time with a parent.
- Use Notice of Risk or Section 60I certificates to trigger additional protection.
The party making the allegation should provide as much evidence as possible, including:
- Police reports
- Intervention orders (AVOs/DVOs)
- Medical records
- Witness statements
- Text messages, emails or recordings (where legally obtained)
Ultimately, the Court’s guiding principle is whether the other party/the child’s safety and emotional wellbeing is at stake. Parenting arrangements will be made to minimize harm, which may include supervised contact, changes to time arrangements, or, in some cases, no contact at all.
The Growing Challenge
As artificial intelligence platforms become increasingly capable and widely used, a new legal and ethical challenge has emerged: What happens when AI tools are used to commit crimes? From generating malicious code to producing misinformation or even assisting in scams, AI’s potential for misuse is real and troubling.
The core issue lies in the distribution of responsibility. Is it solely the user, who actively chooses to misuse the platform? Or does liability extend to the creators and operators of the AI, whose tools enable the harmful behaviour even if unintentionally?
The User's Role
Generally, in legal systems around the world, the user who commits a crime using an AI platform is held accountable for their actions. They made the choice, took the steps, and initiated the crime. If someone uses a hammer to hurt someone, we prosecute the person swinging the hammer not the toolmaker.
That said, AI platforms aren't hammers. They can generate autonomous responses, act at scale, and sometimes even assist in planning wrongdoing. This blurs the line between tool and accomplice.
The Creator’s Responsibility
Platform creators currently limit their liability through terms of service, disclaimers, and content moderation mechanisms. But the legal community is starting to ask tougher questions:
- Did the creator take reasonable steps to prevent misuse?
- Was there negligence in safety design or deployment?
- Were warnings and user safeguards adequate?
In extreme cases, if an AI platform is recklessly designed or its developers ignore clear signs of harm being done, there may be grounds for shared liability or civil lawsuits.
Pathways to Resolution
Resolving this dilemma requires a multi-pronged approach:
- Robust Safeguards
Creators must embed safety layers—such as misuse detection, content filters, and abuse reporting mechanisms—into every AI tool.
- Transparent Accountability
Clear documentation on what an AI is capable of, how it should be used, and how it’s monitored can reduce ambiguity and shift liability appropriately.
- Updated Legislation
Governments should develop legislation that defines AI-related offenses and determines when liability extends beyond the user to the developer or provider.
- Ethical Design
Developers need to adopt frameworks like "responsible AI" or "AI ethics by design," ensuring that their systems resist malicious use and promote transparency.
Conclusion
AI platforms are powerful and transformative but with power comes responsibility. While users should certainly be held accountable for criminal actions, creators of these tools must recognize their role in shaping safe and ethical technology. Liability should be shared based on intent, design safeguards, and responsiveness to misuse. Only then can we build a future where innovation and integrity go hand in hand.
Queensland has recently passed legislation which ensures that all venues being built for the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games are exempt from 15 major planning rules, so projects are not held up by potential legal challenges. The Queensland government anticipates there will be early building works beginning soon.
One of these exemptions allows for development at Brisbane’s Victoria Park. However, this has created backlash and formed a group named Save Victoria Park to protest infrastructure occurring on the green space. The Queensland Conservation Council director, Dave Copeman, stated that the government had ignored hundreds of appeals from the community and key stakeholders from using up this natural area. He has also stated that development should be “rigorously assessed and held to a high standard on First Nations engagement, community benefits and nature protection.”
This new legislation has also implemented new changes for the approval of renewable energy projects and prioritising regional community interests to ensure that infrastructure goals are achieved. Large-scale wind and solar farms will require mandatory public consultation, and developers would need to enter into binding community benefit agreements with local councils. Although, some councils say the legislation imposes upfront processes that delay real outcomes.
If you or someone you know wish to discuss this issue further, then please do not hesitate to contact us on 02 8999 9809.