Inside the new life of ‘road rage killer’ Tracie Andrews, as a Channel 5 drama retells her astonishing web of lies – and her daughter reveals devastating impact mother’s crimes had on her childhood
Tracie Andrews, now known as Jenna Goldsworthy, is living a quiet life in Cornwall, nearly 30 years after she murdered her fiancé Lee Harvey and tried to blame his death on a road rage attack. A new Channel 5 drama has revived the case, prompting renewed distress for Harvey’s family and for Andrews’ daughter, who says the public retelling reopens a traumatic part of her childhood.
Andrews’ daughter Karla was seven when her mother went to prison and was raised by her father during Andrews’ 15-year sentence. She and Lee Harvey’s daughter Danielle, who was five when he was killed, became friends as children and remain sympathetic to each other’s loss. The article says their parents met in 1994 and had a volatile relationship, breaking up and reconciling nine times before Harvey’s murder in 1996.
- A Channel 5 drama has revived the 1996 murder case.
- Andrews’ daughter says the coverage is still traumatising.
- The victim’s daughter has also spoken of the family’s distress.
New here? Start with this
In 1996, Tracie Andrews killed her fiancé Lee Harvey. She initially claimed he had died in a road rage attack, but was eventually convicted of his murder and sentenced to 15 years in prison.
Andrews and Harvey had an unstable relationship characterised by repeated breakups and reconciliations. Both had young children at the time of his death: Harvey had a daughter, Danielle, who was five, whilst Andrews had a daughter, Karla, who was seven when she was imprisoned.
Andrews, now living under the name Jenna Goldsworthy in Cornwall, has largely stayed out of the public eye since her release. The case periodically resurfaces and continues to affect those involved, particularly the families of both Harvey and Andrews.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
True crime dramatisations serve important public purposes by examining real cases, educating viewers about crime and justice, and prompting reflection on the legal system. Freedom of artistic expression matters, and this case is already part of the public record rather than secret information being exposed. Revisiting significant crimes through drama can illuminate broader truths about human nature, relationships, and society that have value beyond mere entertainment.
The case against
Dramatising real crimes causes genuine and unnecessary suffering to people who didn't consent to their trauma being turned into entertainment. Andrews has served her sentence and rebuilt her life; renewed dramatisation undermines rehabilitation and reintegration. The victim's family and perpetrator's daughter face reopened wounds without agreement. Whilst public interest has some weight, the concrete harm to identifiable, already-traumatised individuals outweighs abstract educational benefits that could be achieved through other means.