'Abuse in childhood made Duchess's aide kill her lover'

A former dresser to the Duchess of York killed her boyfriend in a rage as she was finally forced to confront the childhood sexual abuse she had endured nearly 20 years earlier, the Court of Appeal was told yesterday.

Jane Andrews revealed the identity of her alleged abuser to her lover hours before she hit him with a cricket bat and then plunged an eight-inch kitchen knife into his heart, three High Court Judges were told. Her legal team claims abuse in her relationship with Tom Cressman, 39, and the unravelling of childhood experiences affected her mental state at the time.

The appeal follows closely a similar legal challenge by the family of Ruth Ellis, the last woman to be executed in Britain, who was convicted of murdering her lover 48 years ago, a time when the defence of diminished responsibility was not recognised. Partly because of the Ellis case, Parliament introduced the defence two years after she was hanged.

The Court of Appeal has yet to give judgment on whether Ellis's conviction should be reduced to manslaughter on the ground of provocation, the only defence available to her then.

Andrews' struggle with complex emotions over the claimed childhood abuse and desperate desire to hold on to her boyfriend released an "unbearable rage'', Vera Baird QC, counsel for the defence, said. "The psychiatrists say people with borderline personality disorders are intensely emotionally unstable,'' she said.

On the opening day of the appeal, Ms Baird said Andrews' adult years had been marred by depressive episodes, panic attacks and acts of self-harm. She said only "heavy sessions'' after she was jailed for life for murder had "unlocked the full facts of sexual abuse and the impact it had on her''. She said a 70-page report by Dr Fiona Mason, a psychiatrist specialising in women offenders, found it was likely her mental responsibility for the killing was "significantly affected''.

Andrews, 36, claimed she was abused by her brother Mark, from the age of eight to about 11 or 12, a claim strenuously denied by the alleged perpetrator, the court was told. At one point, she grabbed a knife and threatened she would use it if he touched her again, locked herself in a cupboard and held a dog, hoping it would attack him, Ms Baird said.

Andrews told psychiatrists she failed to report the abuse because her brother told her "bad girls'' would be taken away but she was scared of being around him for years afterwards, the court heard.

She told Mr Cressman about the abuse in 1999, months after they started their relationship. He paid for her to go to a private therapist in Chelsea. But she stopped going to see the therapist because of fears that Mr Cressman, whose father is a millionaire businessman, would find out what she was talking about and because of the cost, Ms Baird said.

Unfortunately for everyone, she added, the visits finished too soon for her to gain any benefit. She said the secret was locked away until after the killing.

The court was told Andrews was encouraged to write a letter to her brother about the alleged abuse as part of her therapy, but not to send it. Andrews, wearing a navy suit and sky blue blouse, wept in the dock as sections were read to the court. Her parents and those of Mr Cressman were in court.

Andrews claimed she was raped by Mr Cressman on the morning of the killing, in September 2000, and he belittled her by taking her to a sex fair in Olympia and buying rubberware he forced her to don.

Ms Baird said Andrews was obsessed with Mr Cressman and still wanted to marry him. But, just before the killing at the home they shared in Fulham, west London, he told her on a French holiday that he would not marry her.

At her Old Bailey trial, she "collapsed'' when she started to talk about the abuse, Ms Baird said. The case was delayed for two days and she was jailed in May 2001. Her lawyers said she was assessed by Dr Mason, a prison psychiatrist, for two years.

Bruce Houlder QC, counsel for the Crown, accused Andrews of "jumping on the psychiatric bandwagon'', adding: "This court should say there is nothing in this case that renders a jury finding unsafe. This was a killing not excused by accident or self-defence.''

The hearing, before Lord Justice Kennedy, Mr Justice Forbes and Mr Justice Aikens, continues today.