I have had the benefit of reading the judgements in the original appeal against sentence and the latest one against conviction. I am in two minds about this.
They had separated and she had moved out; however, they had reconciled and they had spent the afternoon together at the former matrimonial home. That afternoon, she became suspicious that he was continuing his infidelity and there was a minor row. They had been cleaning out the garage and she had put a hammer in her handbag. Later after she got him something to eat she killed him. She went home, but the next day ended up at Beachy Head where she was talked down and arrested.
There is very little in either judgement about the extent or the effect of the alleged abuse she suffered; indeed, this was one of the reasons for the appeal. Thus on the one hand, it appears that she murdered him in a jealous rage; however, the Court of Appeal were persuaded that evidence of the coercive and controlling nature of her husband ought to be before the jury. At present, we simply do not know what evidence her defence team will be adducing.
If it was the case that she was subject to long-term abuse then I do have immense sympathy for her but I cannot help questioning why Counsel at her original trial did not lead such evidence. There have certainly been previous cases where women have killed physically abusive partners and have been convicted of manslaughter as opposed to murder. I imagine the difference with this is that this was emotional abuse (this is the controlling and coercive behaviour). To what extent, remains to be seen.