Australian True Crime – “Justice Lex Lasry Returns”

Podcast by Bravecasting
Release Date: October 12, 2025
Host: Meshel Laurie
Guest: Justice Lex Lasry

Episode Overview

This episode revisits the complexities of recent high-profile murder trials in Victoria, with host Meshel Laurie discussing her experiences observing these cases. Justice Lex Lasry returns as a guest, providing expert insight into the legal processes, challenges faced by judges and juries, sentencing philosophies, public perceptions, and the broader implications for the justice system. Among the focal cases discussed are the Greg Lynn and Erin Patterson trials, with a candid exploration of why certain evidence is admitted or excluded, the human weight of sentencing, the role of motive, the media circus, and much more.

Tone: Candid, reflective, occasionally wry, and empathetic.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Recent High-Profile Australian Murder Trials

• Discussion begins with a recap of two major trials:
  • Greg Lynn (High Country Campers Case): Convicted of murdering Carol Clay, acquitted of killing Russell Hill.
  • Erin Patterson (“Mushroom Case”): Convicted of murdering her parents-in-law, attempted murder of Heather’s husband Ian Wilkinson.
• Meshel reflects on the gravity and public scrutiny around these cases, especially the marathon-like length of the Patterson trial (~10 weeks).

2. The Admissibility of Evidence & Rules of Trial (02:25)

• Justice Lasry explains the selection and admissibility of evidence:
  • Police collect extensive witness statements, but only relevant and admissible evidence is presented to the jury.
  • “It doesn't mean that because it's in the brief and because someone's given information to the police about stuff they know, perhaps secondhand, perhaps they've heard, perhaps they have an opinion, none of that stuff is prima facie admissible.” (Lasry – 03:17)
• The trial judge, here Justice Beale, rules on what the jury hears, excluding prejudicial or irrelevant material.

Notable Segment: Why Prior Acts Aren’t Always Admissible (04:19)

• Meshel questions why evidence of prior suspicious poisonings by Erin Patterson wasn’t admitted.
  • Lasry: “It's not relevant because she's entitled to be tried on the incident that actually caused the death and nothing else... Here, there was no question that she put the mushrooms in the beef Wellington. The only question is whether she intended to kill. So what she did on another occasion really doesn't make much contribution apart from obviously create a prejudice against her...” (04:41)

3. Manslaughter vs. Murder – Legal Strategies (05:32)

• Meshel asks why the jury wasn’t given the option of manslaughter.
  • Lasry: “The judge told the jury manslaughter wasn't an option. It was either going to be guilty of murder or not guilty of murder... But I suppose theoretically... she could have said, I'm not guilty of murder, but I am guilty of manslaughter. That would have completely changed the way the trial was run. But that didn't happen.” (05:50)

4. Gender Dynamics in the Courtroom (06:26)

• Meshel highlights Dr. Nanette Rogers’ prominence as Patterson’s cross-examiner.
  • She wonders if gender impacts perception, especially in highly charged cross-examinations.
  • Lasry: “Yeah, it's better to have the woman be the cross examiner. If it had been a man, inevitably people would have complained of a sort of power imbalance. So I think that combination was the right combination.” (06:50)

5. The Jury's Dilemma and Public Perception (07:06)

• Meshel notes the public’s view during deliberations: “I think she did it, but I think she'll get off.”
  • Lasry: “I thought it was going to be difficult for the Crown because they specifically said, we don't claim to know the motive... Motive is, you know, a piece of circumstantial evidence that can be very powerful... But it's pretty powerful stuff in the right case. And there was no motive alleged. I thought that was going to be a problem anyhow. It wasn't. I was wrong about that.” (07:31–08:06)

6. Defendant Testimony: Risks and Realities (08:06)

• The decision for Erin Patterson to testify is discussed; she was considered “deeply unlikable.”
  • Lasry: “One of the... moments in a trial that is always uncomfortable for the defense is when... your client sits down and the cross examiner prosecutor gets to their feet and starts. And sometimes you just sit there and watch it fall apart. You just want to be under the table sometimes.” (08:43)

7. Dropped or Excluded Charges and Jury Confusion (09:25)

• Meshel asks how juries interpret dropped attempted murder charges.
  • Lasry: “Well, it shouldn't affect them at all... What else happened outside this courtroom in relation to other matters is irrelevant for your purposes... They would be told if they asked a question about it. I'm sorry, I can't tell you the answer to that because it's not relevant for your deliberation, so please put it out of your mind.” (09:51)
  • He concedes judges strive for legal rigor, avoiding errors that might derail the trial.

8. The Human Strain of Jury Duty (13:01)

• Meshel and Lasry discuss the hardship and boredom of jury service in lengthy, technical trials.
  • “It's a lot to ask a human being, isn't it?” (Meshel – 13:10)
  • “These days... people are not used to having to sit in a suit and be lectured at for two or three hours at a time...” (Lasry – 13:13)

9. Heavy Atmosphere of Sentencing (14:04)

• Meshel recalls the intense environment of the sentencing hearing.

  • Notable quote, as Meshel describes: “The only sound after the sentence had been handed down was the sound of the chinking of the handcuffs and things as Erin Patterson left the court.” (16:44)
  • Lasry: “It's a very difficult moment and I don't think any judge enjoys doing it. But you have to. Obviously.” (16:52)

• Excerpt from Sentencing Remarks (Judge):

  • “Your offending... involved substantial premeditation... you did so with the intention of killing them all... you showed no pity for your victims.” (Judge, dramatized – 14:40)

10. The Media Circus & Public Interest (18:33)

• Why do some cases (like Patterson’s or Chamberlain’s) attract international attention?

  • Lasry: “Because it was so unusual... This had all sorts of intrigue... People just get really interested in that sort of stuff. It's intriguing, but Chamberlain was a stain on our system... Women who do these things attracted probably more attention than men.” (18:33–21:10)

• Gender dynamics are highlighted: women perpetrators “fascinate” society in a way male offenders often don’t.

11. Sentencing Philosophy: Compassion, Parole, and Public Outrage (21:10)

• Discussion of Patterson’s 33-year minimum sentence, the balance between punishment and dignity even for monstrous crimes.

  • Lasry: “We do live in a civilized community... Whoever it is is still entitled to be treated as a human being and treated humanely in custody... I don't think anyone who pays attention... has any concept of what serving a sentence in virtual solitary confinement would be like...” (22:03)
  • Also discusses the difference between fixed non-parole periods and life-without-parole, referencing previous notorious cases sentenced by Lasry, e.g., Robert Farquharson, Sean Price, Michael Cardamoni.

• Notably, for the Cardamoni case (never-to-be-released):

  • “He was a man in his 50s and he was on parole for rape. And I took the view was totally irredeemable. I said, life with no minimum term... He’ll die in jail. But they’re exceptional.” (25:27)

12. Does Sentencing Harden or Soften with Experience? (26:52)

• Meshel asks if Lasry’s approach to sentencing changed.
  • Lasry: “I think in many respects the nature and quality of criminal cases has changed... the violence of the crimes seems to be increasing. And I think... it's hard not to sentence more heavily in those... because the first thing you have to consider is the nature and quality of the act... the graph seems to be going up. I think so.” (27:12)

13. The Social Roots of Crime & Failed Deterrents (28:07, 34:14)

• Brief musings on Australia's possible desensitisation to violence and the limitations of “tough” policies.
  • Lasry: “If you think you’re gonna prosecute your way out of a criminal problem, you’re kidding yourself... when people commit crimes of passion, they're not thinking about getting caught and they're certainly not thinking about the sentence.” (35:35)
• References Scotland’s success with reducing youth violence by “treating violence as disease” via social intervention, not jail.

14. The Death Penalty, International Justice, and Australian Courts (28:43–32:40)

• Lasry’s outspokenness against death penalty, referencing Singapore’s ongoing executions.
  • “There’s any amount of research to demonstrate... the death penalty deters people? That's just not so... it completely undermines the civilization of that community.” (33:19)
• Australian judicial independence contrasted with politicised US appointments.
  • “Unlike Americans who I have very little reason to be proud of the Supreme Court, I think we have every reason to be proud of our High Court... always wind up taking their oath as High Court judges seriously and applying the law vigorously.” (31:21)

15. Public Attitudes & Information Gaps (36:19)

• Lasry laments lack of community information and support for alternatives to prison.
  • “I don't think the community knows enough... they don't get enough information about how alternative approaches can work.” (36:19)

Most Memorable Quotes

• On exclusion of evidence:
  “It's not relevant because she's entitled to be tried on the incident that actually caused the death and nothing else... obviously create a prejudice against her, but it doesn't help the jury to decide what happened on this occasion.” (Lasry, 04:41)

• On the discomfort of sentencing:
  “It's a very difficult moment and I don't think any judge enjoys doing it. But you have to. Obviously.” (Lasry, 16:52)

• On the lack of deterrence of harsh punishments:
  “If you think you’re gonna prosecute your way out of a criminal problem, you're kidding yourself... when people commit crimes of passion, they're not thinking about getting caught and they're certainly not thinking about the sentence.” (Lasry, 35:35)

• On what remains after sentencing:
  “The only sound after the sentence had been handed down was the sound of the chinking of the handcuffs and things as Erin Patterson left the court.” (Meshel, 16:44)

• On compassion and criminal justice:
  “Whoever it is is still entitled to be treated as a human being and treated humanely in custody.” (Lasry, 22:03)

• On women as the subject of the media circus:
  “Women who do these things attracted probably more attention than men.” (Lasry, 21:10)

Timestamps for Key Segments

| Segment | Timestamp | |---------------------------------------------------------------|------------| | Lasry explains admissibility of evidence | 02:25–04:19| | Why prior poisonings aren’t relevant | 04:19–05:32| | Exclusion of manslaughter as a jury option | 05:32–06:26| | Gender in cross-examination: Dr Nanette Rogers and Patterson | 06:26–06:50| | Role of motive in prosecution & jury speculation | 07:06–08:06| | Risks & impact of the accused testifying | 08:06–09:25| | Dropped charges and jury confusion | 09:25–10:43| | Sentencing atmosphere: the human toll | 14:04–17:00| | Media attention: why some cases become circuses | 18:33–21:10| | Sentencing, parole, compassion, and exceptional cases | 21:10–26:52| | Has sentencing philosophy changed? | 26:52–27:50| | Is Australian violence increasing? | 27:50–28:13| | Death penalty and international justice | 28:43–33:36| | Social approaches to crime: learning from Glasgow | 34:14–35:59| | Why “locking them up” isn’t solving crime | 35:35–36:19|

Conclusion

This episode is a compelling exploration of the tension between the intense public interest in rare, sensational crimes and the sober, strenuous work of the courts—balancing due process with humanity, media appetite with restraint, and compassion with public safety. Justice Lex Lasry’s candid reflections offer a rare inside look at how justice is administered, what the public doesn’t see, and why, despite society’s darkest moments, he remains a believer in a compassionate and rigorous legal system.