Jurors have been sent out to begin their deliberations in the Erin Patterson case.

Two jurors have been balloted off and sent home.

The 12-person jury panel who will decide Patterson’s fate now includes seven men and five women.

The remaining jurors then gave an affirmation pledging not discuss the case with anyone except in the unlikely event they are separated from the group during deliberations.

Justice Beale has told the jury they will retire to the jury room briefly so he can engage in legal discussions to determine whether any further instructions are needed before they are sent out to deliberate.

He said when they return to the court, there will be a ballot to bring the total number of jurors down to 12.

Justice Beale said the other members of the jury are not to contact the jurors who have been balloted off to discuss the case.

Justice Beale said the ballot would be “very abrupt” and “quick”, and would be repeated if the foreperson’s number was pulled out, as they are the only juror who cannot be balloted off.

Ahead of time, he thanked the two jurors who will be sent home for their service over the past ten weeks.

“May I say a warm thank you to those two people who will be balloted off,” he said.

“I do not know if you will feel relieved or frustrated.

“But be assured, you have made a great contribution.”

Justice Beale said at the end of the trial, jurors, including those balloted off, will be offered dispensation from jury service for the next 15 years should they wish to accept it.

The judge has told the jury they will need to return an unanimous verdict to find Patterson either guilty or not guilty.

While they all must agree on the verdict, Justice Beale said they do not have to reach the conclusion for the same reasons as they may have different assessments of the evidence.

He said the jury will deliberate from Mondays to Saturdays in the privacy of the jury room at the court until they reach a decision.

They will only be able to provide their verdict between the hours of 10.30am - 1pm, or 2.15pm- 4pm on deliberation days.

They will be sequestered each night in a hotel for the duration of deliberations.

While they will not deliberate on Sundays, they will still remain sequestered.

Justice Beale has taken the jury through two key issues:

1. Whether Patterson deliberately included death cap mushrooms in the beef Wellingtons

2. Whether she had the necessary state of mind to prove the charges.

Justice Beale said he will first address whether she had good reasons not to kill her lunch guests.

He said members of the Patterson family, her online Facebook friends, and Detective Stephen Eppingstall gave evidence that she had been a good mother, devoted daughter-in-law, that Don and Gail Patterson were loving grandparents, and that she had no criminal history.

He noted Patterson gave evidence that she had been feeling isolated from the Patterson family in the lead up to the lunch.

Justice Beale recalled evidence from the defence that Patterson said her in-laws were good people and there was no reason to kill them.

Justice Beale said motive may be important but what the prosecution has to prove is intention.

Justice Beale then turned to other evidence relating to alleged intention.

He took the jury through the Recipe Tin Eats recipe, which laid out the beef wellington in a log, and Patterson’s evidence relating to her reasons to change them into individual serves.

He then turned to evidence in court regarding the colour of the plates, including testimony from Patterson that she didn’t own matching plates.

Ian Wilkinson previously told the court the lunch guests were served on four large grey plates.

Justice Beale said another topic of contention was how the lunch plates were allocated.

He noted the prosecution argue Heather and Gail collected four plates and Patterson allocated her own plate, by taking it to the table herself.

The defence argue there were no instructions given about which plates the guests should take to the table.

Justice Beale has begun part two of his charge.

He told the jury this section will take the jury through issues they will have to consider.

Justice Beale noted the jury will have to consider all of the evidence and arguments that have been made in court, not just those mentioned by him.

He emphasised that no added importance should be given to the evidence he has referenced, and that it is up to them to decide the weight of evidence.

Justice Beale has told the jury he has finished part one of his charge.

He said he is on page 329, and his charge will finish at page 365.

The jury were then sent out for a quick break.

As Justice Beale’s drew to the end of “part one” of his charge, he said the last topic was titled “miscellaneous”.

He said the topic referred to a note he made in relation to discussions in court last week about the significance of PCR tests performed on Patterson’s urine and faecal samples.

Justice Beale said there was an issue with the prosecution’s argument that the samples were subjected to PCR tests and her illness was not caused by eating death cap mushrooms.

“

“There is no evidence that PCR can detect amatoxins.”

Justice Beale has provided the jury with instructions in relation to the elements for the charges.

For the three counts of murder, the four elements must be proved by the prosecution:

1. She caused the deaths by serving a poisonous meal

2. Her actions were conscious, voluntary, and deliberate

3. She itended to kill or cause serious injury

4. She killed without lawful justification or excuse

Justice Beale said it is not disputed Patterson served her guests death cap mushrooms, so they jury should find not find element one in dispute.

He says element two, which refers to consciousness, excludes the acts of a unconscious person, such as someone engaging in an act while sleep walking.

He said the term voluntary means the accused engaged in willed conduct, excluding situations where someone is not in control of body and mind such as due to mental illness.

The third term, deliberate, refers to whether someone did something involuntarily.

Justice Beale said it is disputed that Patterson knew the meal contained the death cap mushrooms, which relates to the second element.

He said the third element - her state of mind - is also in dispute and the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that she intended to kill them or cause them serious injury.

“The prosecution argues she had the appropriate state of mind,” Justice Beale said.

“The person’s intention may be inferred by what she did and what she failed to do. You should look at all of her actions before, during, and after the alleged offence, as it may help you determine if she intentionally caused their deaths.”

Justice Beale reiterated the elements of attempted murder are:

1. She conscious, voluntarily, and deliberately served Ian Wilkinson a poison meal

2. That the acts were a) More than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence; and (b) Immediately and not remotely connected with the commission of the offence

3. At the time of the alleged conduct, she intended to kill Ian Wilkinson

4. That she did so with no lawful justification or excuse.

Justice Beale said the first element, which relates to willed conduct, is what is in dispute as the defence argues she did not do so deliberately.

Justice Beale said evidence presented in court supports the fact Ian Wilkinson was severely ill, which supports the second element.

He noted the intention to kill was argued and no lawful justification or excuse had been raised.

Justice Beale has reminded the jury that defendants within our legal system are considered not guilty until proven so.

He reiterated the onus is on the prosecution to prove to the jury that she is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Justice Beale said reasonable doubt is not an imaginary concept and the prosecution must prove each of the elements of the charges.

He noted that while there may be motives for some murders, for others, there may not be.

He said the prosecution concede in this case there is no motive, but the defence argue that there is evidence of not motive and there are good reasons for her not to have committed the alleged charges - including her reported longstanding positive relationship with her inlaws.

The defence also argued the tensions with Don and Gail and Simon were short lived - however, the prosecution say their relationships were not harmonious in the lead up to the lunch.

Justice Beale said if the jury