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

[Deleted member 367833]

Indeed it does. As seen by the actions of these two because of their hatred of authority and social services.

All hatred deludes.

 

[Alyce]

1. The prosecution's role is to convince the jury of the defendant's guilt. They did that. Just as the defence tried to convince the jury that they were innocent caring parents.

2. Leaving your dead baby in a bag of rubbish with a nappy full of sh-it is monstrous.

3. Planning to give your baby to a random stranger off gumtree just to avoid social services will make people hate you.

It is actually mind boggling that people are still trying to defend this pair. It also makes a mockery out of our court system to suggest that a jury, that were privy to all the evidence and spent days coming to a verdict, have somehow got it wrong.

This. Absolutely.

 

[Deleted member 367833]

Okay I have now seen issue 14 of The View. It is a long issue and I haven't read it all, but I've read the piece by Adinola Susan Ademba entitled "A Trial in the Shadows: Constance Marten Story", which quotes a lot from CM. It has the "Dementors" and "surveillance state" quotes that have been mentioned in mainstream media. I further observe as follows:

1. It does not mention anything about trying to throw her retrial, or the reference to MG's convictions in the USA, or anything about that particular incident or its aftermath during the retrial. There's nothing about it whatsoever.

2. It quotes CM as making an extremely serious allegation against a clearly identified family member, which obviously one cannot possibly repeat here for legal reasons.

 

[Alyce]

dbm

 

[Nikynoo]

Link to the Daily Mail article:

Baby killer Constance Marten set to appeal

Aristocrat Constance Marten is set to appeal her conviction for killing her baby in a case which has already cost taxpayers over £2.8million.

www.dailymail.co.uk

BBM

To be clear: this is what the police officer in charge of this case has been quoted in a major newspaper as saying after the verdicts were returned at the retrial.

But isn’t there something in place already? You can’t know what you don’t know, so it would not be reasonable to monitor all mothers who have had their children removed. Those that are known to SS are monitored throughout their pregnancies and orders are out in place for the children to be removed when born. I don’t understand what it is he is trying to say here.

 

[Deleted member 367833]

But isn’t there something in place already? You can’t know what you don’t know, so it would not be reasonable to monitor all mothers who have had their children removed. Those that are known to SS are monitored throughout their pregnancies and orders are out in place for the children to be removed when born. I don’t understand what it is he is trying to say here.

It is not totally clear but I think he is calling for the enabling of contact orders in relation to pregnant women, perhaps not all who have ever had children removed but a subset. The question then being what happens when an order is breached. There is also the question of how do they know someone is pregnant in the first place, because some women who think they might be looking at this kind of order might not be overly willing to tell anyone they're pregnant. IMO both questions will be addressed in the context of technological change (hardware and software). DSI Basford is certainly calling for new law, unless the Daily Mail has wildly misquoted him.

Can orders currently be made for children as yet unborn to be removed when born? If so I wasn't aware of that. Are the women told about the orders when they are issued?

 

[Caroclaud]

Can anyone get this article from behind the paywall?

Baby-killer Constance Marten is causing CHAOS behind bars

Raised in a 25-room Dorset stately home, Constance Marten's childhood was luxurious beyond the wildest dreams of her fellow inmates at HMP Bronzefield.

mol.im

 

[Lucy6226]

Can orders currently be made for children as yet unborn to be removed when born? If so I wasn't aware of that. Are the women told about the orders when they are issued?

Snipped for focus.

Short answer - No and Yes.

Detailed answer for those interested -

Pre-birth assessments are carried out whilst the mother is pregnant and recommendations made. They will either close the referral, refer to Early Help services, recommend a Child In Need plan (S17) or a care order with or without removal (S47). There are other options but these are the main ones.

Court orders can not be made until the baby is born. The hospital usually ring the social worker to advise baby has been born and a likely discharge date. Mother and baby usually stay together until ready for discharge. An emergency court hearing will be held should removal be necessary and an Interim Care Order (ICO) made. Parents will be aware this is happening and will have had the opportunity to seek legal advice in advance.

In really urgent cases an Emergency Protection Order (EPO) made be needed, this is more likely in cases where social services were not aware of the pregnancy or safeguarding issues have been raised for the first time by midwives. Sometimes EPOs are granted without the parents immediate knowledge due to safety concerns, police will usually attend with social services to remove the child safely. Parents will be advised to seek urgent legal advice.

Mothers who have engaged with a pre-birth assessment will be aware of the outcome before the birth, ie if the baby is to be removed from their care. They will also have a detailed care plan which will detail what work needs to be completed and how the Local Authority will support the parents and child throughout proceedings. The pre-birth assessment will also detail the concerns and recommendations. Once the baby is born a full Child & Family assessment can be completed.

Now sometimes parents make radical changes during this period and the recommendation changes and the child is returned to their care. This can happen during the pregnancy, during the ICO or during the Care Order. No permanent decision is made until the final court hearing

The parents are given every opportunity to work with social services to have the child returned to their care. Obviously if they chose not to engage, then it's likely a full care order will be made at the final hearing. Again reunification is possible later down the line, unless the recommendation is adoption of course. Unless adopted, parents will have regular Family Time sessions with the child.

Only judges can action removal of a child. Social services can recommend different outcome but only a judge can make that decision. The judge also will hear evidence from other services, advocate's and also an independent social work assessment. Decisions are not made solely on one social work assessment by the local authority.

Obviously if a parent chooses not to engage (or go on the run) then the court would view that rather dimly. As they would see it as not in the best interests of the child. Recommendations and court hearings can only take place if the Local Authority are aware of the pregnancy/baby in the first place. There is nothing in place regards to unborn babies. It is expected that a mother would do all they can to protect themselves and their baby including engaging with health services.

All MOO in relation to the Children Act 1989

Source :- Children Act 1989

Children Act 1989

An Act to reform the law relating to children; to provide for local authority services for children in need and others; to amend the law with respect to children’s homes, community homes, voluntary homes and voluntary organisations; to make provision with respect to fostering, child minding and...

www.legislation.gov.uk

 

[dotr]

Removal of a Baby at Birth; Interagency Procedure | Leeds Safeguarding Children Partnership

This procedure provides all agencies with clear guidance to follow a decision has been reached to remove a child at birth following a multi-agency assessment.

www.leedsscp.org.uk

 

[Alyce]

Can anyone get this article from behind the paywall?

Baby-killer Constance Marten is causing CHAOS behind bars

Raised in a 25-room Dorset stately home, Constance Marten's childhood was luxurious beyond the wildest dreams of her fellow inmates at HMP Bronzefield.

mol.im

Yes….but we can't post it on here if it is paywalled…

 

[Alyce]

Marten, who is currently held at HMP Bronzefield, has now compared prosecuting barristers Joel Smith KC and Tom Little KC to the Harry Potter figures who guard Azkaban Prison while sucking out the soul and happy memories from anyone they “kiss”. There’s no empathy. I felt like I was being grilled as a serial killer.”

Marten’s interview was with magazine The View, a publication set up by one of her fellow inmates, Farah Damji, who has a string of convictions including for fraud and stalking.

The author dubbed Mr Smith “seasoned and aggressive”, and suggested he and Mr Little are “known for their ruthless courtroom tactics…when a conviction is paramount”.
“I feel as if Joel Smith is just trying to belittle and demean me” - they all use this disgusting tone, like they're reprimanding a small child. I've heard them laugh and joke with others, but with me, it's always condescending.

Constance Marten compares prosecutors to Harry Potter Dementors

Constance Marten has complained about her treatment during her Old Bailey manslaughter trial

www.standard.co.uk

 

[Skigh]

Moaning Constance Marten has become 'target for rude awakening' in jail

CONSTANCE Marten could be in for a “rude awakening” in jail after complaining about food and sneering at fellow inmates, a source has claimed. The former socialite, who is awaiting sent…

www.thesun.co.uk

 

[Deleted member 367833]

Can anyone get this article from behind the paywall?

Baby-killer Constance Marten is causing CHAOS behind bars

Raised in a 25-room Dorset stately home, Constance Marten's childhood was luxurious beyond the wildest dreams of her fellow inmates at HMP Bronzefield.

mol.im

<modsnip>

Interesting article.
Expect more on the theme.
The assertion is attributed to "a prison source" that "she’s got it a lot easier than most prisoners", but I couldn't find any support in the article for the notion that she actually is getting treated better than other prisoners, or that this means anything other than that she has rich family members.

‘She might sometimes be stuck in reception for an hour or so while other prisoners heading to court were rounded up and brought down, and she was never happy waiting,’ the source said.

Before going to court, Marten would have to sit in a ‘BOSS chair’, otherwise known as a Body Orifice Security Scanner, a non-intrusive method of detecting objects concealed in body cavities.

‘All this was normal protocol but she would complain each morning without fail about her treatment and what an inconvenience everything was,’ the source added.

Has anything been published on how MG is allegedly doing in Belmarsh?

 

[Izzylizzy]

We’ve heard and there has been a lot of reporting on Constance Marten’s circumstances and life until meeting MG but do we know what he was doing between being deported back to the UK in 2010 and meeting CM in 2016 (according to the timeline in the Telegraph article below (£) ?

How was he supporting himself the article suggests he was a labourer on a building site, but where was he living? With who? Did he have friends? I wonder what his life was like for those 6 years? I know someone in the thread earlier indicated they liked to know about the background/family of defendants but I think that CMs more colourful life story has meant his has been ignored. I am intrigued as to what he was doing when she met him. Did he spot her immediately as a kind of free meal ticket from the off? Did she pay for all their international travels (I assume so but we just don’t know).

Access Restricted

"In May 2021, almost a year to the day after giving birth to their third child, Marten had a fourth baby. But by now social services had decided to intervene and in January 2022 a judge ordered that all four children be taken into care and put up for adoption."

IMO: Rant

The overlooked victims also are the 4 children that were said to be put up for adoption.
I gather that plan for them has proceeded?
Wishful thinking on my part is that CM's family having plenty of resources and maybe even access to CM's fund could have made arrangements to somehow keep the children together and connected with their family.

Will the children be told who their parents/family are?
Are they separated?

In today's world of adoptees finding their biological parents and/or siblings through DNA if these 4 children are separated and not told their family history I can see a UK show 20 yrs down the line through DNA them finding each other along with their parents and their wealthy family which I see as being bitter-sweet.

If the children are adopted or fostered and separated hopefully the UK family court did what they did with the 3 UK newborns who were abandoned at different times and through DNA were found to be full siblings and are being brought up with contact to each other.

Maybe wherever the children are now they do have contact with their grandparents and family?

So damn sad for the children even though they may be in loving homes and thriving...hopefully.


I just found this article which goes into some detail on the 4 children being put into state's custody and any of my wishful thinking is blown to smithereens about the children having a relationship with their/CM's family.

Why did Constance Marten and Mark Gordon go on the run? Why their older children went into care - and why they thought it would happen again

Constance Marten said she went on the run because there was "no way I was going to part with my child". With their four older children in care, would baby Victoria have been removed? Sky News looks at the couple's motivations and how the family court system works.

news.sky.com

 

[jackal67]

Marten, who is currently held at HMP Bronzefield, has now compared prosecuting barristers Joel Smith KC and Tom Little KC to the Harry Potter figures who guard Azkaban Prison while sucking out the soul and happy memories from anyone they “kiss”. There’s no empathy. I felt like I was being grilled as a serial killer.”

Marten’s interview was with magazine The View, a publication set up by one of her fellow inmates, Farah Damji, who has a string of convictions including for fraud and stalking.

The author dubbed Mr Smith “seasoned and aggressive”, and suggested he and Mr Little are “known for their ruthless courtroom tactics…when a conviction is paramount”.
“I feel as if Joel Smith is just trying to belittle and demean me” - they all use this disgusting tone, like they're reprimanding a small child. I've heard them laugh and joke with others, but with me, it's always condescending.

Constance Marten compares prosecutors to Harry Potter Dementors

Constance Marten has complained about her treatment during her Old Bailey manslaughter trial

www.standard.co.uk

Has she been in this prison since her arrest and being held on remand?

 

[Izzylizzy]

So 18 yrs is the max they can be sentenced to on Sept 15th?

Gross Negligence Manslaughter Defence - JMW Solicitors

If you have been accused of gross negligence manslaughter, our criminal defence solicitors can provide advice and representation. Contact JMW today.

www.jmw.co.uk

 

[Alyce]

Has she been in this prison since her arrest and being held on remand?

Yes, same prison throughout

 

[Deleted member 367833]

So 18 yrs is the max they can be sentenced to on Sept 15th?

Gross Negligence Manslaughter Defence - JMW Solicitors

If you have been accused of gross negligence manslaughter, our criminal defence solicitors can provide advice and representation. Contact JMW today.

www.jmw.co.uk

Yes. More info here:

Gross negligence manslaughter

www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk

The judge has to decide a culpability level (A to D) and each level has a starting point number of years (12, 8, 4, 2) from which he may then adjust up or down within the given level's band.

JMO:

The CPS may rely on blatant disregard. Body concealment is only supposed to be taken into account as factor when not separately charged. IMO they won't get it up to level A, which requires extremeness of at least one B factor or a combination of B factors.

For their part, the defence may find it hard to get it down to C. C requires factors from B and D cancelling each other out or a betweeny decision but in any case it requires consideration of D factors, namely lapse, subordinate role, or mental disorder.

Which leaves us with B - starting point 8, band 6-12. Concealment may be considered an aggravating factor. Ditto alleged ignoring of previous warnings. No previous relevant convictions would be a mitigating factor. Ditto offenders subject to stress coming from outside their control. I don't think post-natality would come in, because it seems to be for when a post-natal woman has manslaughtered someone other than her baby and the considerations include the effects of a sentence on her child, not for when the person manslaughtered actually was her baby.

I can't see it going right to the top of B or right to the bottom either. My guess is they will be looking at a sentence somewhere within a narrower band in the middle of B, probably somewhere between 7 and 10. With 50% remission and 2.5 already served, that would be another 1 to 2.5 years inside. If it stays at 8, that would be another 1.5. Best guess 8-9 because of weight given to alleged previous warnings. That would mean another 1.5-2 inside.

(What do other people here think??)

Can there sometimes be 60% remission when a long time has already been served on remand? If so then 7-10 would mean another 0.3 to 1.5 years.

^ All JMO

PS The Harry Potter "Dementors" thing illustrates that the rule that linkage to a brand gives a story element traction applies just as much to the defence as it does to the prosecution. (IMO).

 

[Izzylizzy]

Yes. More info here:

Gross negligence manslaughter

www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk

The judge has to decide a culpability level (A to D) and each level has a starting point number of years (12, 8, 4, 2) from which he may then adjust up or down within the given level's band.

JMO:

The CPS may rely on blatant disregard. Body concealment is only supposed to be taken into account as factor when not separately charged. IMO they won't get it up to level A, which requires extremeness of at least one B factor or a combination of B factors.

For their part, the defence may find it hard to get it down to C. C requires factors from B and D cancelling each other out or a betweeny decision but in any case it requires consideration of D factors, namely lapse, subordinate role, or mental disorder.

Which leaves us with B - starting point 8, band 6-12. Concealment may be considered an aggravating factor. Ditto alleged ignoring of previous warnings. No previous relevant convictions would be a mitigating factor. Ditto offenders subject to stress coming from outside their control. I don't think post-natality would come in, because it seems to be for when a post-natal woman has manslaughtered someone other than her baby and the considerations include the effects of a sentence on her child, not for when the person manslaughtered actually was her baby.

I can't see it going right to the top of B or right to the bottom either. My guess is they will be looking at a sentence somewhere within a narrower band in the middle of B, probably somewhere between 7 and 10. With 50% remission and 2.5 already served, that would be another 1 to 2.5 years inside. If it stays at 8, that would be another 1.5. Best guess 8-9 because of weight given to alleged previous warnings. That would mean another 1.5-2 inside.

(What do other people here think??)

Can there sometimes be 60% remission when a long time has already been served on remand? If so then 7-10 would mean another 0.3 to 1.5 years.

^ All JMO

PS The Harry Potter "Dementors" thing illustrates that the rule that linkage to a brand gives a story element traction applies just as much to the defence as it does to the prosecution. (IMO).

Why not the "B"?

​

"Very high culpability may be indicated by:"

• the extreme character of one or more culpability B factors and /or
• a combination of culpability B factors

B – Factors indicating high culpability​

• The offender continued or repeated the negligent conduct in the face of the obvious suffering caused to the deceased by that conduct
• The negligent conduct was in the context of other serious criminality
• The offence was particularly serious because the offender showed a blatant disregard for a very high risk of death resulting from the negligent conduct
• The negligent conduct was motivated by financial gain (or avoidance of cost)
• The offender was in a leading role if acting with others in the offending
• Concealment, destruction, defilement or dismemberment of the body (where not separately charged)

 

[Deleted member 367833]

Why not the "B"?

​

"Very high culpability may be indicated by:"

• the extreme character of one or more culpability B factors and /or
• a combination of culpability B factors

B – Factors indicating high culpability​

• The offender continued or repeated the negligent conduct in the face of the obvious suffering caused to the deceased by that conduct
• The negligent conduct was in the context of other serious criminality
• The offence was particularly serious because the offender showed a blatant disregard for a very high risk of death resulting from the negligent conduct
• The negligent conduct was motivated by financial gain (or avoidance of cost)
• The offender was in a leading role if acting with others in the offending
• Concealment, destruction, defilement or dismemberment of the body (where not separately charged)

At the present state of knowledge I do think the judge will decide on B. For A, from those six points one would need either extremeness or combination. I think the CPS will talk up 3. Points 2, 4, 5 don't apply. Point 6 doesn't because separately charged under perversion of course of justice IIRC. Point 1 - they could try it but insufficient evidence IMO. So with point 3 there's the extremeness bar, i.e. not just what it says but an extreme case of it. All JMO, but that's my reasoning for its not being A. What is your analysis?

There may be some surprises that blow all that out of the water and are decisive for some level other than B. But reasoning from now...

The above is for CM. MG may get more time inside B because of sex offender register failure to sign on and possibly the hospital incident for which he served a prison sentence. But I do think he will be in B, for the same reasons as CM. Best guess would be probably 8-10 for him and 8-9 for her, but inside 7-10 inclusive for both defendants - on the GNM. All JMO ofc.