GUILTY UK - Constance Marten & Mark Gordon charged in death of baby Victoria, GUILTY on all counts incl retrial on manslaughter, 5 Jan 2023 #9

[Rusty Braincells]

The Guardian article is incredible (that's a phrase I have never said before, and probably never will again!). There are many incredible parts, but this is probably my favourite bit:

But Gordon persisted: he was without representation; he hadn’t realised what he was doing.

“As I’ve pointed out,” said Lucraft, “you have chosen to represent yourself. It was not forced upon you, that was your choice.”

“If I was aware that this was how self-representation was conducted,” said Gordon, “I probably wouldn’t have done it.”

Mark Alton Gordon. A man who once gave "the 31st of April" as a fake date of birth to two police officers, before assaulting them, in a maternity ward. And this guy thought he had the intellect to act as his own legal representative!?

I think he may attempt to appeal on the basis that his legal representation (himself) was so poor. I wouldn’t put anything past him.

 

[Deleted member 367833]

The appeal ( unsuccessful ) made by c and m just prior to the second trial.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/R-v-Marten-and-Gordon.pdf

How on earth could the instruction have been that the jury could possibly be sure there was hypothermia? (Point 48 of the judgment refusing leave to appeal.)

 

[Deleted member 367833]

Two points here. First, this is a very biased report in the Mail IMO. Second, somewhere along the line it should surely have some weight that practically the whole country or at least everyone interested in this case was aware that MG was convicted of rape many years ago. So CM's blurt out or premeditated move or whatever it should be called was basically a matter of telling the jury what it is likely (JMO) that most or all of them already knew unless they'd been living under a rock.

 

[Lucy6226]

Two points here. First, this is a very biased report in the Mail IMO. Second, somewhere along the line it should surely have some weight that practically the whole country or at least everyone interested in this case was aware that MG was convicted of rape many years ago. So CM's blurt out or premeditated move or whatever it should be called was basically a matter of telling the jury what it is likely (JMO) that most or all of them already knew unless they'd been living under a rock.

But unless it's submitted in evidence it can't be used by the jury to make a verdict. CM 'submitted' that evidence herself, regardless of if the jurors were aware of it.

 

[Deleted member 367833]

Does anyone have the links to the Family Court judgements re CM and MG? I can see they have become public after the trial as they’re quoted in some of the media reports, but I would be interested to read the whole judgements if they are available.

Have they been published? I thought it was just that the state broadcaster was referencing some bits.

 

[Nikynoo]

Have they been published? I thought it was just that the state broadcaster was referencing some bits.

ETA - To update my post.

They are available online.

 

[Nikynoo]

Yes I would like to know this too .Maybe he was entitled to some sort of housing and benefits when he arrived back in the UK perhaps a hostel of some sort and help to find employment and he would have to report regularly from the off after being placed on the SO register.
Having been locked up for so long he would not have any social skills limited education or been able to have relationships .
Did he have any relatives here from before or friends . Maybe there will be people coming forward now with stories to sell to the media?

If you can, try and find the first family judgement. There is a clue in para 35.

 

[jackal67]

If you can, try and find the first family judgement. There is a clue in para 35.

What do I search for online please?

 

[Maltesepuppy]

If you can, try and find the first family judgement. There is a clue in para 35.

Is anyone able to give a link to this or is this a no no?
Many thanks

 

[Skigh]

Is anyone able to give a link to this or is this a no no?
Many thanks

Since the document is in the public domain it should not be a problem to give a link.

 

[Blue-moon]

I have found the 2021 fact finding judgement by Justice Reardon - go to the National Archives ‘find case law’ page, look for family court cases in 2021. The name of the judgement is ‘A London Local Authority v Marten & Ors (Fact-Finding Hearing)’. Both CM and MG are named but of course the children are anonymised.

 

[Maltesepuppy]

I have found the 2021 fact finding judgement by Justice Reardon - go to the National Archives ‘find case law’ page, look for family court cases in 2021. The name of the judgement is ‘A London Local Authority v Marten & Ors (Fact-Finding Hearing)’. Both CM and MG are named but of course the children are anonymised.

Thank you Blue-moon

 

[Sherlockhames]

If you can, try and find the first family judgement. There is a clue in para 35.

I have read a number of the family court judgements now. And they are so heartbreaking to read. The judge displays such compassion and appears to have at all times wished to keep the family together. But the actions of CM and MG in the end prevented that. They were clearly perceived as very much an outlying case in the sense that it was highly unusual to be presented with evidence of what could have been a loving family unit but which was compromised wholly by the selfish actions of CM and MG and their continued railing against all authority and intervention. Devastating for all involved but it really does appear CM only really has herself to blame. Those poor children. X

 

[Legally Bland]

I have found the 2021 fact finding judgement by Justice Reardon - go to the National Archives ‘find case law’ page, look for family court cases in 2021. The name of the judgement is ‘A London Local Authority v Marten & Ors (Fact-Finding Hearing)’. Both CM and MG are named but of course the children are anonymised.

Thanks for that, I've attached what I've found so far.

• Carmarthenshire County Council v Constance Dorothea Marten & Ors-[2018] EWFC 104 (B)
• Baby Gordon-Marten (Interim Care Order Hearing), Re-[2023] EWFC 308 (B)
• The BBC & Ors v Marten & Ors (Publicity Application)-[2024] EWFC 91
• A London Local Authority v Marten & Ors (Fact-Finding Hearing)-[2021] EWFC 129 (B)
• A London Local Authority v Marten & Ors (Final Welfare Hearing)-[2022] EWFC 213 (B)

 

[Maltesepuppy]

Thanks for that, I've attached what I've found so far.

• Carmarthenshire County Council v Constance Dorothea Marten & Ors-[2018] EWFC 104 (B)
• Baby Gordon-Marten (Interim Care Order Hearing), Re-[2023] EWFC 308 (B)
• The BBC & Ors v Marten & Ors (Publicity Application)-[2024] EWFC 91
• A London Local Authority v Marten & Ors (Fact-Finding Hearing)-[2021] EWFC 129 (B)
• A London Local Authority v Marten & Ors (Final Welfare Hearing)-[2022] EWFC 213 (B)

Amazing thank you so much. Now how is one expected to carry on working with this knowledge?

 

[Obergine]

Thanks for putting us on to these documents. It really makes a mockery of those calling for support not separation when you see just how much support they were offered and that they refused to engage with. Apparently, some people cannot be supported even with the best intentions.

 

[Obergine]

Lliterally, 'Miss Patient'...

 

[Sherlockhames]

Thanks for putting us on to these documents. It really makes a mockery of those calling for support not separation when you see just how much support they were offered and that they refused to engage with. Apparently, some people cannot be supported even with the best intentions.

I know - they were given so many opportunities!

And in their specific case if they had accepted and submitted themselves to just the initial minimum level of supervision and stuck with it they could have demonstrated their parenting skills (which it seems a lot of the professionals felt they had innately so were not a concern) then I suspect they would have been left alone after a few months. But they were so mistrustful they ended up losing everything.

I can see now why the authorities were so keen to track them down initially as I imagine all involved so desperately wanted to be proved wrong and that they wouldn’t end up being a danger to their newborn child. But it seems like in this instance the family courts had it exactly right - their own selfish decision making was put above all else - with devastating consequences. I wonder if, now separated by prison, they will get the support they need to get any sort of insight individually into how their personal behaviour was so toxic and how, far from trying to act against them, the state really was trying to help them. So many times in those court transcripts you can see professionals struggling to understand their behaviour and almost willing them to just do the minimum to comply so they could keep them all together. They even felt they were good parents. But their toxic relationship was something that they ultimately prized above even their own children. (The comment about MG planting Apple seeds in the garden with his child was so heartbreaking - these are/were good people. What on earth was it that damaged them so much that they couldn’t even accept the barest minimum of guidance and acceptance of complying with requests for information that would have enabled them to be a family unit together).

 

[Nikynoo]

Since the document is in the public domain it should not be a problem to give a link.

I was reluctant to provide the link as there are still restrictions surrounding these judgements.

 

[Alyce]

Since the document is in the public domain it should not be a problem to give a link.

I agree. Much appreciate those who have assisted, here and elsewhere