A WOMAN jailed along with her nephew for the murder of her husband, who was beaten to death while walking his dog, have failed to clear their names.

Christina Button, 33, and Simon Tannahill, then 21, were each jailed for life after a jury convicted them of George Button's murder in December 2003.

Mr Button, described as a gentle giant, was set upon and killed while walking his dog down a quiet lane near the couple's home in St Mary's Drive, West Rainton, County Durham, in March 2003.

The prosecution said the pair plotted the murder, but each denied the charges.

Button was said to be a compulsive spender with debts of £200,000, who stood to profit from her husband's death and who arranged for Tannahill to attack her husband. Mr Button, 52, died within days of the attack with his wife at his side.

Button and Tannahill have always denied the murder, but judges Lord Justice Tuckey, Mr Justice Leveson and Sir Charles Mantell dismissed their appeals against their convictions.

Lawyers for the pair said the trial judge wrongly allowed the jury to hear several key disputed pieces of evidence, including testimony about a past theft by Button from employers and evidence from neighbours about her lavish spending.

The central issue in the case was the judge's decision to admit video footage taken of Button and Tannahill at a police station, which the prosecution said implicated them in the killing.

Alistair Webster QC, for Button, argued the tape was obtained in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights -which safeguards the right to privacy -because the pair were unaware they were being filmed.

Lord Justice Tuckey said the video had been taken in good faith by police, who believed they were authorised to do so by the Chief Constable.

It showed Button looking towards the door and mouthing something to Tannahill and then moving her ear and touching the wall. Prosecutors said Button was indicating to Tannahill that walls had ears.

The prosecution accepted that the video evidence had been obtained in breach of the pair's right to privacy.

The pair's barrister argued that the law demanded that in every case where such evidence was obtained in violation of human rights, it should be excluded from the jury.

Lord Justice Tuckey said that if correct, it would have far reaching consequences, which he said supported his view against the argument.