The woman jailed for life for murdering her fiancé, whom she said
was killed in a road-rage attack, has lost her appeal.
The woman jailed for life for murdering her fiancé, whom she said
was killed in a road-rage attack, has lost her appeal.
Three judges in London announced their decision on Tracie Andrews, 29, who denied stabbing lover Lee Harvey more than 30 times.
She was found guilty by a jury at Birmingham Crown Court in July 1997.
Mr Harvey's sister, Michelle, 29, said: “I just want the bitch to rot in hell.”
“She would not show her face today. She knows she was not getting out. I think she should hang.”
Although she had been brought to the court building, Andrews waived her
right to appear before the judges.
The dead man's mother, Maureen, echoed her daughter's thoughts: “I still believe that life should mean life. I am happy with the result. Justice has been done.”
Ray Harvey hugged and kissed his wife and said: “We now want to draw a line under Tracie Andrews and start to rebuild our lives.”
“She should stay where she is as far as we are concerned. The past two years have been an enormous burden for our family.”
“Overwhelming evidence secured her conviction. She knows she murdered our son. She knows and the world knows.”
The family then walked to a nearby pub to celebrate.
Tracie Andrews' mother, Irene, was helped sobbing from the court after the hearing.
Both she and her daughter's natural father, John, refused to speak to the media.
‘Damaging publicity’
Andrews claimed she was the victim of a miscarriage of justice because of “damaging” publicity surrounding her case and has urged the court to find her murder conviction “unsafe”.
Lord Justice Roch, sitting with Mr Justice Laws and Mr Justice Butterfield,
reserved their judgement last week after listening to arguments put forward
by Mr Ronald Thwaites QC on Andrews' behalf and by Mr David Crigman QC,
for the Crown.
In a summary of the court's judgement, Lord Justice Roch said: “We do not consider that this jury was prevented from reaching a proper verdict by the reporting in the media of this case on either of the issues this jury had to decided, namely whether they were sure it was the appellant who had killed Lee Harvey and secondly whether they were sure that the possibility of this being a case of manslaughter by reason of provocation had been excluded by the Crown.
“We have already indicated the strength of the prosecution's case against the appellant and the conclusion we have reached is that there is nothing unsafe in her conviction.”
‘Risk to fair trial’
The former model and barmaid, who is serving her sentence at Bullwood Hall jail, Essex, was found beside Mr Harvey's body on 1 December 1996, after they stopped during a row as they drove towards their flat in The Becks, Alvechurch, Worcs.
The prosecution's case was that she had attacked him with an imitation Swiss Army knife before concocting a story about her fiancé being the victim of a road-rage attack by a “fat man with staring eyes”.
It was alleged by the Crown during Andrews' trial that Mr Harvey, 25,
was left dead in the road clutching strands of his lover's hair as she
fled the murder scene at Coopers Hill, Alvechurch, with the knife she
had used to attack him tucked in her stiletto boot.
In the appeal hearing Mr Thwaites told the judges that the trial judge, Mr Justice Buckley, “seriously underestimated the risks to a fair trial and to the appearance of fairness created by the pre-trial publicity and by the on-going publicity especially in the locality from which the jury panel was chosen”.
He also allegedly “failed to take any or any reasonable steps to assess the existence and extent of the said risks” and further “failed to take any or any adequate steps to reduce those risks”.
‘Unmitigated wickedness’
Mr Thwaites said the most damaging publicity followed the charging of Andrews just before Christmas 1996.
“Her name and picture quickly became synonymous with unmitigated wickedness, cunning and duplicity in the collective public mind.”
Pre-trial publicity, he claimed, had portrayed her as a “female terrorist, a firebrand, a knifewoman”.
But Mr Crigman said this was an exaggeration and that the defence had in fact “courted” the very publicity they were now complaining about.
There had been no miscarriage of justice and the trial judge had acted with “great prudence and fairness”.