A "compulsive spender" said to have plotted her husband's murder in an attempt to clear her mounting debts will take her legal battle for freedom to the Appeal Court next week.

Christina Button, 33, was jailed for life in December last year alongside her nephew, Simon Tannahill, over the killing of her husband, George.

The prosecution said Tannahill, then 21, ambushed Mr Button, 52, as he walked his dog down a quiet lane near the couple's home in St Mary's Drive, West Rainton, County Durham, in March 2003.

Button and her nephew plotted to carry out the murder, while Button was said to have been motivated by the pressure of spiralling debts.

It was the Crown's case she was a "compulsive spender" who arranged for Tannahill to attack and kill her husband in the hope of financial profit.

Button was granted permission to appeal against her conviction earlier this month and her full appeal will be heard on Monday by Lord Justice Rose, Mr Justice David Clarke and Mr Justice Christopher Clarke.

At a preliminary hearing on February 3, her barrister, Alistair Webster, argued that the trial judge should have stopped the jury seeing a video recording taken at the police station where Button was depicted telling Tannahill not to tell police anything. He said the admission of the video evidence had breached Button's rights under article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights, which enshrines the right to privacy.

Mr Button died within days of the attack, with his wife at his hospital bedside.

In the months that followed, she showed every sign of being a widow in mourning, sending flowers to the crime scene and placing memorial notices in the local Press declaring her undying love for George.

Button, who has steadfastly denied arranging the murder, was said to have an uncontrollable spending obsession, having accrued £200,000 in debts.

But Mr Webster took issue with the trial judge's admission of three vital pieces of evidence - the police station video footage, evidence about a past theft from employers, and testimony from neighbours about her lavish spending habits.

He said this last cluster of evidence had done nothing to strengthen the Crown's case on motive, but "created a very unpleasant picture of her, which would have been very disadvantageous to her".

There was also "no lawful authorisation" for police shooting the video footage, since officers had only secured permission to use audio material, he told the court. In those circumstances, the video evidence should have been barred from the trial.