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]

More info in the Times about this morning's hearing:

"Mark Gordon cleared of failing to sign sex offenders register"

https://archive.ph/Qll3M

"When asked if he had found lawyers to represent him at the sentencing, Gordon said he had not, adding: “I am very concerned because of the seriousness of the sentencing hearing, that would be disadvantageous. I have been making great efforts to find a solicitor … due to the great publicity of the case, people have been quite reluctant to take it on.”

He added: “I am not up to the challenge of representing myself. I do not know the law. It is too much pressure for me.” "

"Gordon requested a transcript of the four-month trial so he could prepare an appeal against his convictions.

Marten is also understood to be preparing an appeal against her convictions."

(references to royal family snipped)

This morning, the CPS dropped a charge it had previously laid against Mark Gordon (or "aristocrat's partner", as the Standard calls him in its headline.)

The charge was one of a breach of notification requirements relating to his registration as a sex offender, itself relating to a rape of which he was convicted in the 1980s.

MG appeared unrepresented. He said he wishes to be represented at the sentencing hearing next month but has had difficulty finding representation.

Charge dropped against aristocrat’s partner after baby manslaughter conviction

In July, Constance Marten and Mark Gordon were found guilty of killing baby Victoria after they went off grid to avoid her being taken into care.

www.standard.co.uk

 

[Maltesepuppy]

Correct. They are not legally or formally a married couple.
Just partners - separated now and probably for quite some time to come, by having been found guilty of killing a baby.

Civil Wedding in Peru​

Only civil ceremonies are legal in Peru. So, if you plan to wed in church, have a romantic celebration on the beach, the blessing of a Shaman, an adventure wedding or whatever, you first have to get legally married.

The civil ceremony can be performed either in the registry office of a municipality or, since December 2022, as well at a public notary.

Marrying in Peru

You are planning to marry in Peru? First, “Congratulations”! Tying the knot in Peru is a simple and easy process, at least if you have a general understanding about the process and, in case a foreigner is involved, have all the necessary documents on hand.

www.limaeasy.com

You're married if you've been through a marriage ceremony somewhere, you're both still alive, and you consider that the marriage has not ended.

That the Peruvian state only recognises marriages, of those that take place in Peru itself, that its own officials have carried out may well be true. But it's obviously not true that if you plan to have a "romantic celebration on a beach" or an "adventure wedding" you "first have to get legally married".

If the Peruvian state does not recognise MG and CM's marriage, or "common law marriage", what relevance does this have anyway? The British state does appear to have recognised it insofar as they're not up for perjury after repeatedly calling themselves husband and wife on oath in court. This is even if the media have mostly referred to the relationship as being between an "aristocrat" and an aristocrat's "lover" or "partner", as if it has a status somewhat below the morganatic. It is also even if they are not recognised as married or civilly partnered for tax purposes, although I don't know what the position is in that regard.

"They are not legally or formally a married couple."

The difference between "legally" and "formally" in this parallel amplification being? What would be an example of a couple being formally married but not legally, and why do they not count as this?

By the sounds of it, CM and MG didn't even have a civil service.
The Guardian, which I trust more than the Sun, calls it an informal wedding

‘A relentless, destructive energy’: inside the trial of Constance Marten and Mark Gordon

The long read: How did the daughter of an aristocrat end up at the Old Bailey with her partner, charged with killing their two-week-old baby?

www.theguardian.com

The Independent, calls it a "blessing wedding"

Constance Marten tells court ‘my children were stolen by the state’

Marten, 37, and Mark Gordon, 50, are charged with the manslaughter of their daughter Victoria

www.independent.co.uk

Even IF they had got legally married if it's not recognised in the UK, it's not recognised and wishful thinking isn't going to change it.
They are not in prison in Peru, they are in the UK..
If having a legally recognised marriage in the UK mattered to them so much they could have married in the UK.
They had plenty of time and resources for a civil UK wedding.
And as for the court not calling them out for using husband and wife, I cannot say I blame them. It was hard enough to get through the day with these two time wasters that they chose not to highlight something that, in the grand scheme of things, namely the death of a baby, was minor.

 

[Alyce]

By the sounds of it, CM and MG didn't even have a civil service.
The Guardian, which I trust more than the Sun, calls it an informal wedding

‘A relentless, destructive energy’: inside the trial of Constance Marten and Mark Gordon

The long read: How did the daughter of an aristocrat end up at the Old Bailey with her partner, charged with killing their two-week-old baby?

www.theguardian.com

The Independent, calls it a "blessing wedding"

Constance Marten tells court ‘my children were stolen by the state’

Marten, 37, and Mark Gordon, 50, are charged with the manslaughter of their daughter Victoria

www.independent.co.uk

Even IF they had got legally married if it's not recognised in the UK, it's not recognised and wishful thinking isn't going to change it.
They are not in prison in Peru, they are in the UK..
If having a legally recognised marriage in the UK mattered to them so much they could have married in the UK.
They had plenty of time and resources for a civil UK wedding.
And as for the court not calling them out for using husband and wife, I cannot say I blame them. It was hard enough to get through the day with these two time wasters that they chose not to highlight something that, in the grand scheme of things, namely the death of a baby, was minor.

snipped from above .....
If having a legally recognised marriage in the UK mattered to them so much they could have married in the UK. They had plenty of time and resources for a civil UK wedding.


This point has always interested me.
Why didn't cm want to marry mg in an official, lawfully recognised, UK marriage ?
Nothing to stop her, she is certainly well over the age of consent.

 

[rsteen]

snipped from above .....
If having a legally recognised marriage in the UK mattered to them so much they could have married in the UK. They had plenty of time and resources for a civil UK wedding.


This point has always interested me.
Why didn't cm want to marry mg in an official, lawfully recognised, UK marriage ?
Nothing to stop her, she is certainly well over the age of consent.

Possibly part of their general distrust of authority (social services, hospitals etc).

 

[pokerowan]

You're married if you've been through a marriage ceremony somewhere, you're both still alive, and you consider that the marriage has not ended.

If the Peruvian state does not recognise MG and CM's marriage, or "common law marriage", what relevance does this have anyway? The British state does appear to have recognised it insofar as they're not up for perjury after repeatedly calling themselves husband and wife on oath in court. This is even if the media have mostly referred to the relationship as being between an "aristocrat" and an aristocrat's "lover" or "partner", as if it has a status somewhat below the morganatic. It is also even if they are not recognised as married or civilly partnered for tax purposes, although I don't know what the position is in that regard.

SBM. Are you joking? A lot of your posts highlight the accuracy of language used in articles about this case, but you seem to take issue with the accuracy of not referring to CM+MG as husband and wife here. They're not married. They're not married any more than a couple with promise rings are married. If we go by the logic in your first point here, there'd be a lot more formally recognised unions from the school playground!

 

[Deleted member 367833]

By the sounds of it, CM and MG didn't even have a civil service.
The Guardian, which I trust more than the Sun, calls it an informal wedding

‘A relentless, destructive energy’: inside the trial of Constance Marten and Mark Gordon

The long read: How did the daughter of an aristocrat end up at the Old Bailey with her partner, charged with killing their two-week-old baby?

www.theguardian.com

The Independent, calls it a "blessing wedding"

Constance Marten tells court ‘my children were stolen by the state’

Marten, 37, and Mark Gordon, 50, are charged with the manslaughter of their daughter Victoria

www.independent.co.uk

Even IF they had got legally married if it's not recognised in the UK, it's not recognised and wishful thinking isn't going to change it.
They are not in prison in Peru, they are in the UK..
If having a legally recognised marriage in the UK mattered to them so much they could have married in the UK.
They had plenty of time and resources for a civil UK wedding.
And as for the court not calling them out for using husband and wife, I cannot say I blame them. It was hard enough to get through the day with these two time wasters that they chose not to highlight something that, in the grand scheme of things, namely the death of a baby, was minor.

If "formal" is used to mean the same as "legal", then the statement that "they are not legally or formally a married couple" (BBM) is highly rhetorical, with two words being piled up which mean the same thing.

Personally I do not use them to mean the same thing.
There are all sorts of marriage ceremonies - they are all formal. All ceremonies are formal.
These include, but are not limited to, civil acts by state officials.
Some non-state ceremonies have nothing to do with law, religious or otherwise.
There are different laws in different countries about the relationship between non-state and state ceremonies and whether the state recognises non-state ceremonies. It can even happen that a state doesn't do civil marriages but will only recognise religious marriages.

These two people are married because they had a ceremony and clearly they regard it as having been solemn and meaningful, representing a mutual lasting commitment, and their status as having been changed by it to one of being married. Nobody has denied any of that, AFAIAA. In my book, that's what it means to be married. A marriage is either real or fake. Nobody has said theirs is fake.

On a more "live" point, I wonder why the Times is saying they both might appeal, when it's been more than 28 days already since their conviction and you are supposed to enter an application for leave to appeal against conviction within 28 calendar days. This is another illustration of the execrable quality of most of the reporting. JMO.

 

[Lucy6226]

Re your last part, people do not lose their human rights when serving in prison. With the one very controversial exception that they do lose their right to vote in elections.

Deprivation of freedom is considered to be one of the most serious things any society can do to another and it is done under strict control - prisons are supposed to be for rehabilitation and to prevent recidivism as much as 'punishment' - the idea, enshrined into law, is to keep the general public safe from an offender, not to punish or torture the offender. The deprivation of liberty is the punishment in and of itself and of course over in other countries they have different ideas, for example maiming, torturing, public displays of humiliation, or the death penalty.

In the UK we don't include torture or humiliation or DP etc in the system. For some people it's a relief to know their imprisonment is permanent but in the case of these two, or at least CM, it probably isn't, so the idea is how does the system release someone back into the community who is less harmful to society than when they went in.

Torturing an innocent baby to death is something that we can never comprehend or retaliate against the perpetrator or we'd be as sick as them.
Some monsters have a whale of a time in prison with many lovers and friends and even members of the public visiting them and fan clubs. Ref Myra Hindley for one. Sadly. JMO MOO

JMO MOO

Oh I know, it was more tongue in cheek that people think they would have the 'right' to contact each other.

Being detained in prison means certain privileges are removed, you can not carry on the same life as you did on the outside. You are correct in saying they legally lose their right to vote. I was thinking along the lines of the restrictions placed around movement, personal possessions, visits, communication and expected behaviour.

It's not a holiday camp where they can dictate what happens. I can imagine these two demanding private phone calls to each other!

 

[Lucy6226]

If "formal" is used to mean the same as "legal", then the statement that "they are not legally or formally a married couple" (BBM) is highly rhetorical, with two words being piled up which mean the same thing.

Personally I do not use them to mean the same thing.
There are all sorts of marriage ceremonies - they are all formal. All ceremonies are formal.
These include, but are not limited to, civil acts by state officials.
Some non-state ceremonies have nothing to do with law, religious or otherwise.
There are different laws in different countries about the relationship between non-state and state ceremonies and whether the state recognises non-state ceremonies. It can even happen that a state doesn't do civil marriages but will only recognise religious marriages.

These two people are married because they had a ceremony and clearly they regard it as having been solemn and meaningful, representing a mutual lasting commitment, and their status as having been changed by it to one of being married. Nobody has denied any of that, AFAIAA. In my book, that's what it means to be married. A marriage is either real or fake. Nobody has said theirs is fake.

On a more "live" point, I wonder why the Times is saying they both might appeal, when it's been more than 28 days already since their conviction and you are supposed to enter an application for leave to appeal against conviction within 28 calendar days. This is another illustration of the execrable quality of most of the reporting. JMO.

In the UK a marriage is legally recognised union between two people. This is written in law.

Being legally married (or civil partnership) has certain rights and responsibilities attached to it.

Marriages and civil partnerships in England and Wales

How to get married or form a civil partnership in the UK, giving notice of marriage at a register office, visas, paying fees.

www.gov.uk

So yes technically anyone can say they are married, but it would not be legally recognised in the UK. Although I do believe hand-fastening ceremonies are legal in Scotland. So that could have been another option for CM & MG.

I'm all for alternative ceremonies, I have a lot of friends who are in alternative or polyamorous relationships and aren't attracted to the traditional route of legal marriage. They opted for hand fastening or Wiccan ceremonies, which were extremely beautiful and meaningful. But they understand that it is not legally recognised.

Moo

 

[Lucy6226]

I suspect MG's charges have been dropped regarding failing to sign/update the SO register, due to the sentence for that being up to 5 years iirc. It is likely they will be sentenced for longer than 5 years for the manslaughter by gross negligence and convictions from the first trial. So it's not in the public interest to pursue this charge imo.

 

[CatsnChickens]

So yes technically anyone can say they are married, but it would not be legally recognised in the UK. Although I do believe hand-fastening ceremonies are legal in Scotland. So that could have been another option for CM & MG.

My SIL got married in Scotland and part of it was a hand fastening but they had to go through the formal legal stuff before so on its own it isn't enough even here in Scotland.

 

[Maltesepuppy]

SBM
If we go by the logic in your first point here, there'd be a lot more formally recognised unions from the school playground!
[/QUOTE]

So relieved to hear that, my son would have been the most prolific bigamist in the world by age 10

 

[Lucy6226]

My SIL got married in Scotland and part of it was a hand fastening but they had to go through the formal legal stuff before so on its own it isn't enough even here in Scotland.

Ah yes. A quick Google suggests you still need to complete the notice of marriage/licence beforehand and then after the ceremony take the marriage schedule to be exchanged for the legal marriage certificate. Without those steps it isn't legally binding.

No idea why I thought it had become legal of itself. Just me romanticising Scotland probably

 

[Alyce]

I suspect MG's charges have been dropped regarding failing to sign/update the SO register, due to the sentence for that being up to 5 years iirc. It is likely they will be sentenced for longer than 5 years for the manslaughter by gross negligence and convictions from the first trial. So it's not in the public interest to pursue this charge imo.

That makes sense. Not worth spending even more of our taxes on him just to cover this rule break, when in all likelihood his sentence for killing his child will surpass this limit.

 

[Alyce]

If "formal" is used to mean the same as "legal", then the statement that "they are not legally or formally a married couple" (BBM) is highly rhetorical, with two words being piled up which mean the same thing.

Personally I do not use them to mean the same thing.
There are all sorts of marriage ceremonies - they are all formal. All ceremonies are formal.
These include, but are not limited to, civil acts by state officials.
Some non-state ceremonies have nothing to do with law, religious or otherwise.
There are different laws in different countries about the relationship between non-state and state ceremonies and whether the state recognises non-state ceremonies. It can even happen that a state doesn't do civil marriages but will only recognise religious marriages.

These two people are married because they had a ceremony and clearly they regard it as having been solemn and meaningful, representing a mutual lasting commitment, and their status as having been changed by it to one of being married. Nobody has denied any of that, AFAIAA. In my book, that's what it means to be married. A marriage is either real or fake. Nobody has said theirs is fake.

On a more "live" point, I wonder why the Times is saying they both might appeal, when it's been more than 28 days already since their conviction and you are supposed to enter an application for leave to appeal against conviction within 28 calendar days. This is another illustration of the execrable quality of most of the reporting. JMO.

@Nikynoo

Just flagging this one up for you - perhaps you could offer some legal insight into Carriep's thoughts ? I appreciate you might not handle this area of law, but you are probably way more knowledgeable than many of us in being able to offer advice.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Oh I know, it was more tongue in cheek that people think they would have the 'right' to contact each other.

Being detained in prison means certain privileges are removed, you can not carry on the same life as you did on the outside. You are correct in saying they legally lose their right to vote. I was thinking along the lines of the restrictions placed around movement, personal possessions, visits, communication and expected behaviour.

It's not a holiday camp where they can dictate what happens. I can imagine these two demanding private phone calls to each other!

From some accounts I've heard about life in prison, it would not surprise me at all to find out these two are gassing on the phone to each other all day. Sadly, we the general public are led wildly astray by TV and movie depictions of prison life. JMO

 

[TragicPuzzl3s]

In the UK a marriage is legally recognised union between two people. This is written in law.

Being legally married (or civil partnership) has certain rights and responsibilities attached to it.

Marriages and civil partnerships in England and Wales

How to get married or form a civil partnership in the UK, giving notice of marriage at a register office, visas, paying fees.

www.gov.uk

So yes technically anyone can say they are married, but it would not be legally recognised in the UK. Although I do believe hand-fastening ceremonies are legal in Scotland. So that could have been another option for CM & MG.

I'm all for alternative ceremonies, I have a lot of friends who are in alternative or polyamorous relationships and aren't attracted to the traditional route of legal marriage. They opted for hand fastening or Wiccan ceremonies, which were extremely beautiful and meaningful. But they understand that it is not legally recognised.

Moo

I do wonder if there was a stipulation in CM's Trust fund that meant that she wouldn't have had access to any of it if she'd married MG ?

Money talks in many ways and, for all her talk of wanting nothing to do with her family or their cash, CM still ensured *that* trust fund pipeline was open and patent.

Imo, that's definitely a real possibility/major contributing factor as to why they didn't legally marry.

Also, MG's criminal history undoubtedly paid a role too - perhaps CM&MG believed that a legal marriage would somehow be utilised by SS et al.

Edited typos.

 

[TragicPuzzl3s]

I suspect MG's charges have been dropped regarding failing to sign/update the SO register, due to the sentence for that being up to 5 years iirc. It is likely they will be sentenced for longer than 5 years for the manslaughter by gross negligence and convictions from the first trial. So it's not in the public interest to pursue this charge imo.

Yes, this. When weighing up the pros/cons, the amount of money that would be ploughed into an additional trial isn't in the interest of the justice aka "public purse".
For eg, if the failure to sign the register trial had gone ahead (& resulted in a guilty verdict) & MG had then been sentenced for that alongside the manslaughter & 2024 verdicts : the "totality of offending" would likely have meant that a concurrent sentence would have been rendered for it.
(Going by the sentencing guidelines).

 

[Skigh]

@Nikynoo

Just flagging this one up for you - perhaps you could offer some legal insight into Carriep's thoughts ? I appreciate you might not handle this area of law, but you are probably way more knowledgeable than many of us in being able to offer advice.

I would also be really interested to hear some legal insights .

 

[Yellowbelly]

I would also be really interested to hear some legal insights .

No particular legal insights, but the whole thing seems quite straightforward really.

If a British couple wish to get married abroad they have to follow the processes of that country -

Getting married or registering a civil partnership abroad

Find out how to get the documents you’ll need to get married or form a civil partnership overseas and how much they’ll cost.

www.gov.uk

The only form a marriage recognised under Peruvian law is a civil marriage -

Marrying in Peru

You are planning to marry in Peru? First, “Congratulations”! Tying the knot in Peru is a simple and easy process, at least if you have a general understanding about the process and, in case a foreigner is involved, have all the necessary documents on hand.

www.limaeasy.com

"Only civil ceremonies are legal in Peru. So, if you plan to wed in church, have a romantic celebration on the beach, the blessing of a Shaman, an adventure wedding or whatever, you first have to get legally married."

No doubt, in their own heads, CM and MG regard themselves as being married to each other. As they've never gone through the necessary legal processes to create a legally valid marriage in the UK, Peru, or any other country that we're aware of, then the law in England & Wales doesn't recognise them as being married.

 

[Alyce]

No particular legal insights, but the whole thing seems quite straightforward really.

If a British couple wish to get married abroad they have to follow the processes of that country -

Getting married or registering a civil partnership abroad

Find out how to get the documents you’ll need to get married or form a civil partnership overseas and how much they’ll cost.

www.gov.uk

The only form a marriage recognised under Peruvian law is a civil marriage -

Marrying in Peru

You are planning to marry in Peru? First, “Congratulations”! Tying the knot in Peru is a simple and easy process, at least if you have a general understanding about the process and, in case a foreigner is involved, have all the necessary documents on hand.

www.limaeasy.com

"Only civil ceremonies are legal in Peru. So, if you plan to wed in church, have a romantic celebration on the beach, the blessing of a Shaman, an adventure wedding or whatever, you first have to get legally married."

No doubt, in their own heads, CM and MG regard themselves as being married to each other. As they've never gone through the necessary legal processes to create a legally valid marriage in the UK, Peru, or any other country that we're aware of, then the law in England & Wales doesn't recognise them as being married.

Thanks for that Yellowbelly

I was just hoping @Nikynoo would be able to offer her/his legal knowledge on the subject, always great when we have a legal expert on the thread.