GUILTY UK - Constance Marten & Mark Gordon charged in death of baby Victoria, Guilty on counts 1 & 5, 2025 retrial on manslaughter, 5 Jan 2023 #8

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

The jury in the trial of Constance Marten and Mark Gordon, who were accused of killing their baby daughter by going on the run with and sleeping rough with her in freezing temperatures in January 2023, has been discharged after failing to reach a verdict.

The couple were accused of manslaughter by gross negligence following the death of baby Victoria in January last year.

But after 72 hours and 33 minutes of deliberations following a trial at the Old Bailey, the jury was unable to reach a unanimous or majority verdict on the charge.

The judge, Mark Lucraft KC thanked the ten man jury for their “exceptional dedication” to public service but told them as they had indicated they would not be able to reach a majority verdict if they had more time, he was discharging them from further deliberations.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is now expected to consider whether it will seek a retrial on the charge of manslaughter.




www.telegraph.co.uk

Constance Marten and Mark Gordon jury discharged after failing to reach verdict

The couple were accused of manslaughter by gross negligence following the death of baby Victoria in January last year
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
 
bbsaz said:
What happens to the counts they did decide on?
Click to expand...


Just looking at the Telegraph article, my post 467 above, it states that the CPS may seek a retrial on the manslaughter charge. Which says, to me, that the other verdicts have been accepted and sentencing should be given for them.
At least I absolutely hope so.
 
On Wednesday, the Judge Mark Lucraft KC thanked jurors for their "extraordinary" public service and the "dedication" they have shown in the case.

The judge also said he would be excusing them from jury service for the rest of their lives.

The jury of five women and five men spent 72 hours and 33 minutes deliberating.




www.bbc.co.uk

Constance Marten and Mark Gordon jury discharged

Ms Marten, 37, and Mr Gordon, 50, denied manslaughter by gross negligence of their baby Victoria.
www.bbc.co.uk
 
Alyce said:
For anyone who ( like me ) needs a quick reminder of the charges/Judge instructions.

Here is a very comprehensive list that @bobbymkii wrote up for us




Jury instructions - route to verdict:

Count 1: Concealing the birth of a child
1. given birth to a baby - not in dispute
2. endeavoured to conceal the birth of a child - not in dispute
3. (must be same verdict for both defendants) are you satisfied so that you are sure that the defendants concealed the birth of the child by secretly disposing of the dead body (Yes= Guilty, No= Not guilty)


Count 2: Child cruelty:
1. Are you satisfied the defendants are over 16 - not in dispute
2. Are you satisfied they had responsibility for a child under 16 - not in dispute
3a. (must be same verdict for both defendants)
are you satisfied so that you are sure that the defendants neglected the child
(Yes= move on to question 4. No= move on to question 3b)

OR

3b. (must be same verdict for both defendants)
are you satisfied so that you are sure that the defendants exposed the baby (to the elements)
(Yes= move on to question 4 No= not guilty)

If the answer to that question is yes, they move to question four.
If not, the defendants are not guilty of child cruelty.
What he was basically explaining was that all 11 of the jurors have to be sure that child cruelty was committed through exposure. Or, alternatively, all 11 of the jurors have to be sure it was committed by neglect.

It was not sufficient, he said, for half of them to be in one camp agreeing to exposure and half of them to be in the other agreeing that it was committed by neglect. He said they all have to be sure that it was one or the other.

4. (must be same verdict for both defendants)
are you satisfied so that you are sure that the defendants' neglect or exposure was likely to cause the baby unnecessary suffering or injuries

(Yes= Guilty, No= Not guilty, AND ALSO MUST FIND DEFENDANTS NOT GUILTY OF COUNTS 3&4)


Count 4 (MUST BE CONSIDERED BEFORE COUNT 3): Manslaughter (by Gross Negligence):
1. Was there a duty of care to the child -not in dispute
2. are you satisfied so that you are sure that the defendants' breached duty of care to baby V
(Yes= move on to question 3 No= not guilty)

3. are you satisfied so that you are sure that the defendants' breach gave rise to serious and obvious risk of death
(Yes= move on to question 4, No= not guilty)

4. are you satisfied so that you are sure that the defendants' breach caused or made a significant contribution to the death (Yes= move on to question 5 No= not guilty)
If they're sure of that, they were told, they should consider whether the breach of the duty of care amounts to gross negligence. It's only after answering yes to this fifth question, along with all the other ones, that they can find the defendants guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence. Otherwise, the judge said they must acquit the defendants on this charge.

5. did the breach amount to gross negligence (Yes= Guilty, No= Not guilty)


Count 3: causing or allowing the death of a child

1. Were both C and M part of the same household as Victoria -not in dispute
2. did both C and M have frequent contact with Victoria -not in dispute
3. are you satisfied so that you are sure that there was a significant risk of serious physical harm being caused to V by one of the defendants.
(MG and CM to be judged separately)
(Yes= move on to question 4, No= not guilty)

4. whether they are sure V died of an unlawful act. By at least one of the defendants (MG and CM to be judged separately)
(Yes= Guilty, No= Not guilty)

If they were sure of this, the judge said, they had to consider
whether they were sure Mark Gordon was the person who caused Victoria's death or ought to have been aware of the risk of serious harm to Victoria and then failed to take the steps he could reasonably have been expected to take to protect Victoria from death. And then finally, that her death took place in circumstances Mark Gordon foresaw or should have foreseen.

They were then told to ask the same questions about Constance Marten.

If they were sure for both defendants of these questions. Then they were guilty of causing or allowing the death of a child



Count 5: Perverting the course of justice:

He said the jury should be satisfied that there was a series of acts which tended to pervert the course of justice. He said it was a matter for the jury, but they may well think this element was not in issue.

are you satisfied so that you are sure that the defendants' did what they did with the intent to pervert to course of justice – in other words, the police investigation. (IE lying in police interviews)
(Yes= Guilty, No= Not guilty)
Click to expand...
So, if it is only count 4 there is no verdict on, does that mean that count 3 is a NG verdict? The sentencing for counts 3 and 4 are similar (maximum life). Are counts 3 and 4 alternative or did the jury have to consider both as it would seem to me that a finding of G on both 3 and 4 could result in 2 life sentences. Could someone clarify?
 
Would we expect to know at this stage if they have verdicts on some of the charges, or does this mean that there are no verdicts on any of the charges?

I had come to expect this for the manslaughter charge; I am shocked if they haven't reached a verdict of the lesser charges, especially concealing the birth.

Will they stay on remand until the retrial, if there is one?
 
From the CPS:

It is in the interests of justice that a decision to seek a re-trial should be taken as soon as possible and be communicated promptly to the court, the defendant and the police.

It may be possible to foresee the likely verdict before the trial finishes. Prosecutors and caseworkers should be alert to this possibility. Wherever possible, consultation should take place and a decision reached (subject to any views expressed by the judge) before the jury returns.

In other circumstances, prosecuting advocates should be instructed to seek an adjournment to allow the necessary consideration of the case to take place.

The appropriate length of the adjournment to be sought is;

  • a maximum of 14 days, if the defendant is on bail; or
  • a maximum of 7 days if the defendant is remanded in custody.
A decision should be made by the adjourned hearing date.

If the application for an adjournment is refused, prosecuting advocates should request a re-trial. It should be made clear to the court and the defence that the decision will be subject to review.

When the prosecution is obliged to request a re-trial without the opportunity of fully considering the case, a review of the decision should be made promptly by the Unit Head upon the criteria previously set out. That review should be completed within 14 days if the defendant is on bail, or 7 days if the defendant is in custody.

Retrials | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk www.cps.gov.uk

Sounds like we'll hear fairly promptly
 
rightsaidfred said:
Radio 4 World at One is reporting that there will be a hearing next week about a possible retrial.

They're also reporting that it's only manslaughter where they were unable to reach a verdict.
Click to expand...
So are they guilty or not guilty of the other three charges (concealing the birth, child cruelty and perverting the course of justice)? In the Letby trial, once the jury were discharged the media reported the verdicts that had been reached. Has the judge maintained the reporting restrictions until the CPS decides on the re-trial?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 172 more.
Total: 1,737 (members: 173, guests: 1,564)

Online statistics

Members online
173
Guests online
1,564
Total visitors
1,737
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,216
Messages
18,091,874
Members
230,815
Latest member
xxxooowow
Back
Top