The Victorian Director of Public Prosecutions, who has carriage of the Erin Patterson murder case, has chosen to appeal against what he considers to be an overly lenient sentence.

This comes on the back of news last week the convicted murderer has instructed her lawyers to institute an appeal against her conviction.

These appeals could extend the life of the high profile case, or it could all quickly fizzle out. Here’s what’s happening now and what comes next.

From lunch to a life sentence

In September, Patterson was sentenced on three counts of murder and one count of attempted murder for serving a beef Wellington filled with poisonous mushrooms to guests at her home in regional Victoria in July 2023. It followed a lengthy, notorious trial.

Victorian Supreme Court Justice Christopher Beale ordered a life sentence with a non-parole period of 33 years. Given her age (50) and the time she’d already spent in detention, Patterson will not be eligible to apply for parole until 2056, when she is in her 80s.

The law typically gives both the prosecution and the defence 28 days after the sentence to lodge any appeal.

This period would have expired Tuesday October 7, but both legal teams have sought an extension of a further 28 days under a new process that came into operation (on a trial basis) at the end of last month. This allows for a total of 56 days (28 days plus the extended 28 days) if the initial notice of appeal is filed within the first 28 days.

This is what both teams are now doing, but for very different reasons.

Patterson’s appeal

Erin Patterson has a new team of barristers, not only high profile lawyer Julian McMahon, but also well known criminal law academic and writer Richard Edney.

Under the Victorian Criminal Procedure Act, any person seeking to appeal a conviction or sentence must first seek leave to appeal. This basically means permission to appeal.

The matter of leave is heard by a single judge of the Supreme Court. This judge will determine whether there is sufficient merit in the appeal grounds (reasons) to warrant convening a full hearing of the Court of Appeal.

The judge could grant such leave to Patterson to appeal against her conviction on any or all of three grounds.

The first is where the verdict of the jury is deemed unreasonable and not supported by the evidence.

This was the ground successfully sought in the George Pell appeal verdict, where the High Court determined his convictions were unsound. The High Court decided it was not open to the jury to find Pell guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

A second ground is that the trial judge insufficiently directed the jury’s attention to the defence case in the summing up. This is highly unlikely to be raised in the Patterson appeal.

A third ground is where there has been a substantial miscarriage of justice in the course of the trial. Typically this argument is based upon a defence submission that something has been allowed into evidence (by the trial judge) which should not have been introduced, or that something was not allowed into evidence (excluded by the trial judge) which should have been admitted into evidence.

One can strongly speculate that this is where the defence’s appeal submission will proceed.

The prosecution’s appeal

Either party can appeal the sentence. Thus the prosecution must also get leave to appeal from a judge to advance its case.

In this case the prosecution is now seeking to do so, and will need to submit that the sentence is obviously – not merely arguably – overly lenient.

As Patterson was given three life sentences (to be served concurrently), the prosecution will argue that a 33 year non-parole period (not unusual in cases of single homicides) was clearly inadequate.

It’s highly improbable the defence will cross-appeal the severity of the sentence, given it is at the lower end of what a triple murderer could have expected to receive.

What happens if the appeals are allowed?

If the defence appeal against conviction is allowed, the court may either acquit Patterson or send the whole case back for a retrial.

In the case of a successful appeal against sentence by the prosecution, the appeal court can either impose a longer non-parole period, or send the matter back to the trial judge for a re-sentencing.

There will be much to observe in the next phase of the criminal justice process. The first hurdle for Patterson is to get leave to appeal. At that hearing we will know for the first time where the appeal arguments are headed, and indeed, whether anything will further unfold.

Rick Sarre, Emeritus Professor in Law and Criminal Justice, University of South Australia and Ben Livings, Associate Professor in Criminal Law and Evidence, University of South Australia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Marina Yue Zhang, University of Technology Sydney

Though they still haven’t been officially confirmed, reports China’s state-owned buyer told steelmakers to stop purchasing iron ore from Australian mining giant BHP have rattled both markets and Canberra.

At first glance, this looks like a simple dispute over price. But step back, and a picture begins to emerge of something possibly far more deliberate.

If true, this ban represents a pressure test from China – one that goes beyond trade and speaks directly to the future of Australia’s economy and the shape of global resource politics.

A dispute over price

The flashpoint appears to be a breakdown in iron ore supply contract talks between BHP and the China Mineral Resources Group (CMRG), a government-run company created in 2022 to consolidate purchases for China’s steel industry. The disagreement centres on stalled negotiations over pricing.

According to reporting by Bloomberg, China applied pressure earlier in September by instructing its mills to stop buying one specific BHP product. Then, at the end of the month, China reportedly expanded the order to suspend all shipments from BHP priced in US dollars.

Neither side has yet confirmed or denied the report, and one Chinese commodity analysis firm, Mysteel, disputed the claim of a ban. But markets were quick to react anyway. BHP’s share price fell on Wednesday.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese voiced concern over the report, and Treasurer Jim Chalmers spoke with BHP chief executive Mike Henry.

For Canberra, it may have carried an unsettling sense of déjà vu: harking back to the 2020–21 trade dispute, when Beijing targeted Australian exports including wine, barley, and coal.

The difference now is that iron ore matters more than any of those products combined. Nearly 60% of Australia’s exports to China in the year to May 2024 were iron ore. Losing access to that trade would strike at the heart of Australia’s economy.

China’s long game

To understand where China sits in these negotiations, it is necessary to rewind two decades.

Despite being the world’s biggest buyer of iron ore, China has long had little influence over the price. Hundreds of steel mills cut deals separately with BHP, Rio Tinto, and Brazil’s Vale. The miners spoke with one voice. The mills did not.

The result was higher costs for China, captured in a phrase often used in its media: the “pain of pricing power”. Whatever China bought, the price went up.

Attempts to push back failed. The China Iron and Steel Association urged boycotts of the miners, but mills broke ranks to secure supply.

In 2009, one Rio Tinto executive was jailed in China for alleged commercial espionage during fraught negotiations.

Then came 2010. BHP’s then chief executive Marius Kloppers led a push to replace annual price benchmarks with shorter-term market-based pricing.

This change supercharged profits for Western Australian producers, who could capitalise instantly as China’s demand surged. For China, it was a nightmare – less control, more volatility, bigger bills.

The creation of the CMRG in 2022 was Beijing’s strategic response.

This is not old-fashioned central planning. It is state capitalism with sharper tools: centralised buying, stockpiling, and big data to support national goals. Its purpose is clear – to turn China from price-taker into price-maker.

The standoff: who holds the cards?

Australia and China rely on each other, but not in equal amounts.

Australia is critically dependent on China for revenue. China, in the short term, still depends heavily on Australian ore. BHP alone supplies around 13% of China’s imports – impossible for either side to replace overnight.

BHP is seeking alternative markets, and Beijing is investing billions in Guinea’s Simandou mine, but both things will take years or decades before reaching scale.

That creates a tense balance: fighting without breaking (斗而不破). Both sides can inflict pain, but neither can afford a full rupture.

If the reports are true, the “ban” is less a final break than a negotiation tactic. It is Beijing’s way of showing BHP – and by extension Rio Tinto and Vale – that the old rules no longer apply.

The future: from iron ore to green steel

Beneath this contest lies a bigger question: who will shape the future of steel?

Traditional steelmaking is one of the world’s dirtiest industries. It relies on coal, which pumps out carbon emissions. The next frontier is “green steel”, made with renewable energy and green hydrogen instead of coal.

During his visit to Beijing earlier this year, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese pitched a vision for Australia to move beyond exporting raw ore and instead sell processed “green iron” – an intermediate product on the path to green steel. With its vast renewable resources, Australia could climb the value chain rather than remain just “the world’s quarry”.

This aligns with China’s own carbon-neutral goals. By flexing now, Beijing may be signalling that future cooperation on green steel will come with conditions. China will not simply be a buyer; it intends to set the rules.

Marina Yue Zhang, Associate Professor, Technology and Innovation, University of Technology Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Carla Liuzzo, Queensland University of Technology and Mimi Tsai, Queensland University of Technology

Endless economic expansion isn’t sustainable. Scientists are telling us our planet is already beyond its limits, with the risks to communities and the economy made clear in the federal government’s recent climate risk assessment.

Sustainability is a hot topic in Australian business schools. However, teaching about the possible need to limit economic growth – whether directly or indirectly related to sustainability – is uncommon.

Typically, business school teaching is based on concepts of sustainable development and “green growth”.
Under these scenarios, we can continue to grow gross domestic product (GDP) globally without continuing to grow emissions – what is known as “decoupling”. It’s a “have your cake and eat it too” promise for sustainability.

Our new research published in the journal Futures shows business students themselves are interested in learning the skills they would need under an alternative post-growth future.

Emerging alternatives to ‘growth is good’

There is mounting evidence of the difficulty of “decoupling” economic growth from emissions growth. The United Nations goals of sustainable development are “in peril”.

This has led to increased interest in no-growth or post-growth economic models and to the movement towards degrowth. Degrowth means shrinking economic production to use less of the world’s resources and avoid climate crisis.

Explicit teaching of degrowth rejects the belief in endless growth. This presents a challenge to traditional concepts in business education, including profit maximisation, competition and the notion of “free markets”.

The issue, and one that degrowth invites students to consider, is that green growth and sustainable development are underpinned by the need for continued economic growth and development. This “growth obsession” is pushing the planet and society to its limits.

Students are keen

Our new study provides a snapshot of students’ interest in alternative systems. It reveals 90% of respondents are open to learning about different economic models.

The study found 96% of students believe business leaders must understand alternative models to continued economic growth. Yet only 15% were aware of any alternatives that may exist. Most (71%) believed viable alternatives exist, but they admitted to lacking sufficient knowledge.

The study had 61 participants currently studying a masters of business administration (MBA) in a top Australian institution.

The research raises the question: if future business leaders are not made aware of alternatives, won’t they continue to assume growth is “inherently good”, and perpetuate the business practices that have pushed humanity beyond planetary boundaries?

The trouble with endless growth

Advocates of the “beyond growth” agenda argue endless growth is not possible. They promote alternate measures of progress to GDP, such as the recent Measuring What Matters report.

Degrowth proposes scaling back the consumption of resources as part of a transition to post-growth economies. Their aim is what economist Tim Jackson calls prosperity without growth. This entails businesses sharing value with communities, and reducing production of things like fast fashion, fast food and fast tech.

It is a rejection of maximising profit in favour of maximising value, based around meeting real needs like housing, food and essential services. Some industries would grow, such as care, education, public transport and renewables. Others may shrink or vanish.

Degrowth and post-growth aren’t alien concepts. There are grassroots movements such as minimalism. Social media abounds with lists of “things I no longer buy”, social enterprises, the right-to-repair movement and community-supported agriculture.

Degrowth also invites students to debate concepts like modern monetary theory, income ratio limits and universal basic income.

The role of business schools

Business schools are doing great work teaching students about changing consumer preferences for green alternatives, new global standards for reporting environmental and social impact, and ways businesses can reduce their environmental impact.

The Australian Business Deans Council in March this year detailed these efforts in its Climate Capabilities Report. This highlighted the need for business schools to produce graduates capable of “balancing business and climate knowledge”.

Our study of Australian business school students shows they are open to learning about degrowth. It challenges the assumption that ideas critical of endless growth would be unwelcome in business schools in Australia.

There is an argument for making explicit degrowth teaching in business schools more accessible because business schools have been criticised for not doing enough to address climate change and social inequality.

Globally, degrowth is starting to be taught explicitly in business schools in Europe, the UK and even the US.

Business schools have long been criticised for a culture of greed and cutthroat competition. As one distinguished professor from the University of Michigan recently put it, “today’s business schools were designed for a world that no longer exists”.

The introduction of no growth or degrowth scenarios to business schools in Australia may go some way to ensuring they are preparing leaders for the future – not priming students for a world that no longer exists.

Carla Liuzzo, Lecturer, Graduate School of Business, Queensland University of Technology and Mimi Tsai, Lecturer, Queensland University of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.