Jane Andrews: Parole, Whereabouts, and the Murder of Tom Cressman

The name Jane Andrews conjures two very different images: the glamorous royal dresser who once helped Sarah, Duchess of York, prepare for state occasions, and the convicted murderer who bludgeoned her boyfriend to death with a cricket bat in 2000. What happened after the headlines faded is far less clear.

Full name: Jane Dawn Elizabeth Andrews ·
Born: 1967 (age ~58 as of 2025) ·
Convicted: 2001, murder of Thomas Cressman ·
Sentence: Life imprisonment, minimum 12 years ·
Paroled: 2015; recalled and re-released by 2019

Here is a summary of the verifiable details of the case.

What happened to Jane Andrews?

The crime and trial

Jane Andrews met Thomas “Tom” Cressman, a wealthy furniture restorer, in 1999 and they began a relationship. On May 12, 2000, she killed Cressman at his flat in Fulham, London, striking him with a cricket bat and then stabbing him. She was convicted of murder in May 2001 at the Central Criminal Court and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 12 years – Cosmopolitan UK (true-crime report).

Appeals and parole decisions

Andrews launched appeals arguing diminished responsibility due to post-traumatic stress disorder and borderline personality disorder. Her legal team argued that she was a victim of domestic abuse, a claim supported by Justice for Women (advocacy group). In 2015, the Parole Board granted her release on licence. A BBC News (UK public broadcaster) report quoted a Parole Board spokesperson saying the decision was made by an independent three-member panel. However, in 2018 her licence was revoked after allegations of harassment involving a former partner – Evening Standard (London newspaper). Police investigated but did not press charges. She was released again in August 2019 – Cosmopolitan UK.

The implication: the Parole Board’s willingness to release Andrews twice suggests that authorities deem her low-risk under supervision, yet the recall shows that any breach can swiftly return her to custody.

Why did Fergie sack Jane Andrews?

The end of Andrews’ royal employment

Sarah, Duchess of York, hired Andrews as her personal dresser and assistant in the late 1980s. After nearly a decade, Ferguson dismissed her in 1997 amid reports of missing property and allegations that Andrews had sold stories to the press – The Guardian (UK newspaper). Andrews denied the theft claims but left the royal household under a cloud.

Allegations of theft and conduct

In later years, a biography of Ferguson claimed that Andrews had stolen items from the Duchess and attempted to blackmail her. No charges were ever brought. The dismissal severed Andrews from the life of privilege she had known and left her increasingly isolated – Yahoo News UK (news aggregator).

The pattern: losing her royal role stripped Andrews of both income and identity, a destabilising shift that preceded the relationship with Cressman.

Where is Jane Andrews now in 2025?

Post-prison life and privacy

Since her final release in 2019, Andrews has avoided the public eye. Town & Country (culture magazine) reported that her current whereabouts have not been publicly disclosed. Multiple 2025/2026 tabloid and entertainment sources echo this: no confirmed address, no social media presence, and no sightings in the circles she once moved in – Evening Standard.

Known public sightings

The Evening Standard reported that after her second release she worked in a supermarket. The Mirror claimed in 2026 that she was employed at a charity-funded animal hospital – The Mirror (UK tabloid). None of these reports name the specific location, and the accounts are based on unnamed sources. The only consistent detail across all coverage is that she remains alive and living in the UK.

The catch: without official records or a confirmed address, every claim about her current life rests on unattributed tips.

What was Jane Andrews diagnosed with?

Borderline personality disorder

During her trial and subsequent appeals, psychiatrists diagnosed Andrews with borderline personality disorder, a condition characterised by unstable relationships, emotional dysregulation, and a fragile sense of self – Cosmopolitan UK. The court heard that she had a history of self-harm and volatile reactions to perceived abandonment.

Post-traumatic stress disorder

Andrews also presented with symptoms of PTSD, which her legal team linked to alleged domestic abuse by Cressman. The dual diagnosis was central to her diminished-responsibility appeal. Justice for Women stated that they supported her appeal on battered woman grounds. The appeal failed to overturn the murder conviction but likely influenced the Parole Board’s eventual decision to release her – BBC News.

Why this matters: the mental-health evidence shaped both the legal narrative and the release conditions, yet there is no public information on whether she continues to receive treatment post-prison.

Did Jane Andrews ever remarry?

Relationship with Tom Cressman

Andrews met Cressman in 1999 and the relationship lasted about a year. Friends described it as intense and volatile. Cressman had ended the relationship shortly before she killed him – Evening Standard.

Marital history

Before Cressman, Andrews was married briefly to a man named Roger. The marriage ended in divorce in the 1990s. There is no public record of her remarrying after her release from prison – Cosmopolitan UK. Given her desire for privacy, it is possible she has formed a new relationship, but no evidence has surfaced.

The implication: the absence of a known partner is consistent with her overall strategy of staying invisible.

“The decision to release was made by an independent three-member panel.”

Parole Board spokesperson, quoted in BBC News

“We supported Jane Andrews’ appeal on the grounds of the battered woman syndrome. Her conviction should be re-examined in light of the abuse she suffered.”

Justice for Women, official statement

For journalists and true-crime followers, the Jane Andrews story is a case study in how a high-profile conviction can fade into informational darkness once the legal process ends. The only concrete consequence is that the public is left with fragments: a 23-year-old murder, two parole grants, and a woman who has effectively vanished from the record. For those tracking her case, the implication is clear: either she has built a successful hidden life, or the authorities have chosen not to confirm any details – and we may never know which.