The likelihood of Lauren Dickason successfully appealing the guilty verdict announced on Wednesday is increased because only 11 of the 12 jurors on the infamous murder trial found her guilty, failing to reach a unanimous decision, according to a law professor, New Zealand media reported.
Auckland University of Technology law professor Kris Gledhill spoke to New Zealand radio station RNZ about the Lauren Dickason trial and explained some of the reasons why her appeal may be successful.
Gledhill told RNZ that the prosecution could not prove to all 12 jurors that Lauren was guilty beyond reasonable doubt and that lays grounds for a possible appeal.
Lauren was found guilty on three counts of murder by an 11 to one jury decision on Wednesday in a High Court in Christchurch.
She admitted to killing her three children six-year-old Liané, and two-year-old twins Maya and Karla on the evening of September 16, 2021, but pleaded not guilty to murder charges by reason of insanity.
In a trial that spanned around five weeks, Lauren’s mental state was put on full display for the world to see by both the prosecution and defence, who claimed that her actions the night of the incident were a result of severe post-partum depression.
But the defence, with its three expert witnesses, could not persuade the jurors to render a different verdict, and thus, Lauren will remain in custody at Hillmorton Mental Institute in Christchurch until she is sentenced.
Gledhill explained that it was not unusual for a jury in New Zealand to be allowed to reach a majority vote verdict, if a unanimous decision could not be derived at.
"In this case, because she's potentially facing life imprisonment, her lawyers are going to be looking at the prospect of appeal in any event,” Gledhill was quoted as saying.
Sentencing Lauren Dickason is still subject to her ongoing medical assessments, according to Justice Cameron Mander’s statement on Wednesday after the verdict was passed.
Mander will still need to decide whether or not Lauren will face the maximum sentence of life in prison, bearing in mind the results of her medical reports.
If Lauren receives a life term in prison, the minimum sentence she needs to serve before parole is applicable will also need to be reviewed.
Gledhill indicated that an appeal can only be made after Lauren’s sentence is handed down.
IOL reached out to Lauren’s lawyer Anne Toohey in New Zealand for a comment via email and is awaiting a response on their plans for an appeal.
In a similar case where we could draw a comparison from, the Andrea Yates murder trial, the American woman who had the decision overturned after she was found guilty of murdering her five children by drowning them in a bathtub.
An earlier report by IOL looked at some of the similarities between the two cases.
Lauren’s defence said that the 42-year-old viewed the world through her depressed lens at the time of the murders and believed that by killing the children, she was removing them from an unsafe space.
Similar to Lauren Dickason, Yates believed she was marked by Satan, and that by killing the children she would be saving them from eternal damnation.
Yates was sentenced to life in prison on March 15, 2002, Click2Houston reported.
A Texas appeals court reversed her conviction and granted Yates a new trial in January 2005.
According to History.com, the new trial stemmed from the fact that an expert witness on behalf of the prosecution, gave an erroneous testimony.
In July 2006, after spending around four years in prison, Andrea was found not guilty by reason of insanity.
She has been in a mental health facility ever since.
IOL