Thirteen years of abuse by a man she describes as cruel and sadistic finally pushed Heather Osland over the edge.In 1991, with the help of her son, Ms Osland ended the torture.Ms Osland was jailed for 14-and-a-half years, with non-parole period of nine-and-a-half years, after a jury dismissed her claims of self-defence.However, during a separate trial, her son David Albion, who inflicted the fatal blow, was acquitted on the grounds of self-defence.Ms Osland fought for her freedom for 10 years.After an appeal to the High Court failed, Ms Osland submitted a petition for mercy to the state government to have her sentence reduced on compassionate grounds, in recognition of the years of domestic violence she had been subject to.It was refused, and until now Ms Osland did not know why.However, after an 11-year battle, Ms Osland’s fight ended on Wednesday when the High Court unanimously ruled that the state government must hand over the documents that explain its decision to reject her plea.With those documents now safely in her hands, Ms Osland says she has another battle ahead of her – accepting the reason why she was refused her liberty.“It’s been a very emotional few days,’’ Ms Osland said yesterday.“I can’t believe I’m reading about myself and they still didn’t release me.’’With 300 pages of legal jargon to get through, Ms Osland has only been able to read a small portion of the documents.However, she’s already disappointed by what she has read.“It says that my sentence should have been ceased,’’ Ms Osland said.“It makes me sad that I continued with those extra 10 years.“I know some people didn’t understand why I wanted the documents.“People said ‘you’re out now, you’re free’, but I’m not really free; while I’m no longer in jail, I am still serving my sentence on the outside.“People really didn’t understand; it was the impact the sentence had on my children, the impact it had on David and the sadness that it caused.’’Ms Osland said the initial advice, as she’d read in the documents, suggested that after her son was acquitted on the grounds of self-defence, her sentence should have been ceased.“When David was found not guilty it meant there was no crime. ‘‘I honestly don’t know why Attorney-General Rob Hulls made the decision of going to the other QCs.’’Following the ruling, Mr Hulls said the High Court had ruled that public interest in the case overrode legal professional privilege. But he maintained that his decision to deny Ms Osland access to the government’s legal advice was the right one.“I can understand that Ms Osland was obviously concerned about spending time in jail, but it has to be remembered that she went through a trial – a jury made a decision,’’ he said.