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

[Lucy6226]

"Mr Gordon will submit the questions he wishes to ask during the trial in written form to the judge".

How is that going to work in practice?

Usually a barrister asks the witness a question - fine, he can have written that down, but then the barrister asks subsequent questions immediately, depending on what the witness has said. in and ongoing to and fro. So will MG be scribbling questions for the usher to carry from one end of the court to the other, for the judge to read (having presumably had time to assess whether all of MG's subsequent Q's are legally allowed to be asked, which, potentially, they might not be?

I presumed he would provide the judge a list of questions beforehand. Not during the actual trial with each question in real time. Surely that would take up far too much time?

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Barristers representing defendants in criminal trials are almost always self-employed.

I don't know whether this is relevant, but there have been no reports that MG has sacked or been sacked by his solicitor.

This is total speculation, but what would fit the reported facts is that the defendants are trying to find a way for CM to bring something up that the judge has ruled inadmissible or that all barristers know that he would rule inadmissible and therefore they can't have any hand in facilitating the bringing up of. (A barrister is not an officer of the court, but they have to follow strict rules and a judge can still report them to the Bar Standards Board.) It wouldn't surprise me if MG asks (or tries to ask) a question that effectively pats the ball into CM's court so that she can hit it where she wants, a question such as "Can you explain the full reasons why you did X?", where X is something she said in her evidence that she did. (JMO etc.)

An open question is whether the reasons for the departure of MG's counsel overlap at all with the reasons for the departure of several of CM's previous counsel.

I thought people were saying the barrister has withdrawn?

CM has gone through five barristers.

I think there's a clue.

As someone's said above, no legal professional can represent a 'Sov Cit' / Freeman on the Land client as their beliefs are incorrect and delusional. Also I don't imagine CM and MG have a cohesive story that doesn't contradict reality itself and each other as well as conflicts within their own accounts, as slippery as I would imagine it to be.

JMO MOO

 

[Cardgame]

I presumed he would provide the judge a list of questions beforehand. Not during the actual trial with each question in real time. Surely that would take up far too much time?

Yes surely MG will have to submit his questions in writing in advance and then perhaps the judge himself will ask them.

Can't imagine he will be allowed to speak to her directly.

Are the lawyers ever allow to reveal what caused them to quit?

 

[CaptainNancy]

The judge clears with the legal teams anything that he says to the jury about legal teams, reasons for defendants absence, reasons for unexpected breaks etc to be sure that everyone is happy that what he says should not influence the jury’s view unfairly.

For example it was reported that when he announced the absence of CM’s leading barrister he said ‘the other one will be asking the questions from now on, you need not concern yourselves with that’ (paraphrased) rather than ‘Miss M has sacked her barrister for the Nth time”.

I speculate that In legalese ‘Mr Femi’s team have withdrawn ‘ could be short for ‘because Mr Gordon no longer wishes them to represent him ‘

Along with all the possible motives for the barrister to have made the decision himself.

JMOO.

 

[Alyce]

I asked AI how these factors might apply in the case of a sovereign citizen. I suspect this may be the case:
A defendant identifying as a sovereign citizen could significantly influence the reasons for a KC junior withdrawing and the defendant's subsequent decision to represent themselves. Here's how:
* Defendant Wishing to Say Something Inadmissible for a Barrister:
* 1a) Plea Bargains: A sovereign citizen might believe that the Crown's offer of a plea bargain is evidence of the illegitimacy or fraudulent nature of the legal system. They might want to bring this up in court not just to inform the jury, but as part of their broader argument that the court lacks jurisdiction or authority over them. A barrister, bound by rules of evidence and professional conduct, would be unable to present such arguments if they are legally irrelevant or inadmissible.
* 1b) Jury Nullification: Sovereign citizens often hold beliefs that they are not bound by the laws of the state and that juries have a right (and perhaps a duty) to disregard laws they believe are unjust. A sovereign citizen defendant might explicitly try to persuade the jury to nullify based on these beliefs, regardless of the judge's instructions. A barrister could never ethically or legally advocate for jury nullification.
The fundamental clash here is between the sovereign citizen's belief system, which often rejects the legitimacy of the state and its laws, and the barrister's duty to operate within that legal framework. The barrister would likely find the defendant's desired lines of argument to be legally nonsensical, potentially harmful to their case within the established legal system, and professionally unethical to pursue.
* Barrister Getting "Right Up the Defendant's Nose":
* This is highly probable with a sovereign citizen client. Their core beliefs often involve distrust and rejection of legal professionals, whom they might see as agents of an illegitimate system. They are likely to be highly resistant to a barrister's advice, legal strategies, and understanding of the law. The barrister, in turn, would likely find the client's beliefs and proposed "legal" arguments to be baseless and frustrating. This fundamental incompatibility in worldview and approach would make a working relationship extremely difficult, if not impossible, leading to the barrister's likely desire to withdraw.
* Continuing to Represent Compromising the Barrister Professionally (Defendant's Confession):
* This becomes even more complex with a sovereign citizen. Even if the defendant confesses to the barrister in private, their understanding of "guilt" and the legitimacy of the charges might be so fundamentally different from the legal definition that it wouldn't necessarily trigger the same ethical obligations for the barrister in the traditional sense.
* However, if the sovereign citizen insists on presenting a defense based on demonstrably false factual claims (even if rooted in their belief system), the barrister would still be professionally compromised by actively participating in such a presentation. The barrister's duty is to the court as well as to the client, and they cannot knowingly mislead the court.
* Furthermore, a sovereign citizen might demand that the barrister present pseudolegal arguments or engage in disruptive courtroom tactics that are completely unacceptable and professionally damaging for the barrister.
In conclusion, the fact that the defendant is a sovereign citizen significantly increases the likelihood of all three reasons for withdrawal being relevant. Their rejection of the legal system's legitimacy, their desire to voice legally unsound arguments, and the high probability of a breakdown in the client-barrister relationship due to irreconcilable differences in worldview make it very challenging for a barrister to ethically and effectively represent them. The barrister would likely conclude that continuing representation is professionally untenable. The defendant, in turn, might see self-representation as the only way to voice their "truth" and challenge a system they believe is illegitimate.

Excellent Obergine. Thank you so much. This just shows how much AI is infiltrating via the ever changing personas .

 

[CaptainNancy]

Alyce: good point.

maybe something had been said in court that MG / his defence thought should not have been said (due to restrictions / confidentiality, maybe his own … circumstance) and could influence the jury.

JMOO.

 

[Carriep]

Since others are speculating as regards possible reasons for barristers withdrawing in this case, my impression from the combination of

1. Francis FitzGibbon's passing the baton to Tom Godfrey for the examination of CM (after a day's hearing in chambers IIRC)

2. the fact that it wasn't clear whether or not FFG was still on the case or was simply taking a back seat during his client's evidence

3. the way the judge said it wasn't for the jury to wonder why there'd been a switch

...was that the person who made the biggest contribution to FFG's withdrawal (whether temporarily or permanently) may have been neither FFG himself nor his client but the judge. (JMO - total speculation - just saying it's a possibility, that's all).

Before anyone asks "Can a judge do that?", well theoretically no but practice is a different beastie. Compare: if judges don't want to hear a counsel's submission when a matter is open and it's undeniable that the counsel has a right to be heard, they have been known to say things like "I can't hear you"...which probably doesn't appear in any lawbook.

For background: a barrister can't sack a client because he thinks the client is delusional or because he thinks the client's case is non-cohesive, self-contradictory, etc. Generally speaking what a barrister thinks about such things is of no relevance. The same applies to whether he thinks the client is lying, or guilty. He's there to represent his client's case, not to have a view about such things.

The BSB Handbook

The BSB Handbook contains the rules about how barristers in England and Wales must behave and work. It also contains the Code of Conduct for barristers. BSB r

www.barstandardsboard.org.uk

 

[Carriep]

Three questions regarding the current witness's (CM's) evidence:

1. At the first trial, who cross-examined CM first? Was it MG's counsel or the prosecution?

2. Why is MG (and it doesn't matter here whether it's through counsel or personally) doing it first this time?

3. (Related to Q2). Has the crown said they don't want to cross-examine her? If they have, of course this may change depending on what she says when cross-examined by MG. But I wouldn't assume the CPS want to cross-examine her in the box for ages, the way they did last time.

 

[Carriep]

It was reported yesterday that court would reconvene at midday today. What does this ^ mean ? (This is for today from thelawpages.com.)

 

[Alyce]

Another short day


www.thelawpages.com

 

[Konstantin]

Another short day


www.thelawpages.com


View attachment 584259

No news stories from today, as far as a quick check shows.

 

[jackal67]

No news stories from today, as far as a quick check shows.

What is going on with this trial FGS !!

 

[Carriep]

Regarding when a defendant is not allowed to cross-examine a witness in person, or at least reasons that might apply in this case...

From the Crown Court Compendium (official guidance for judges):

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Crown-Court-Compendium-Part-I-July-2024-April-2025-update.pdf

See section 3-5 on the management of trials when a defendant is acting in person. (BBM)

Directions
(...)
9 (...) On appeal Laws LJ stated:

23. “It is, it seems to us, quite clear from the learning on this subject (see R. v De Oliveira
[1997] Crim. L.R. 600) that the directions to be given to the jury where a defendant
chooses to be, or becomes, unrepresented are very much to be tailored to the particular
case. No doubt there were different ways of dealing with the matter… Although the judge
did not spell out in terms the difficulties faced by a defendant acting in person, it is entirely
plain that she was at pains to ensure that he was not prejudiced. She invited him to
provide her with relevant documents in advance of his cross-examining a co-defendant so
that she might warn him of any issues of admissibility. The jury was told that there would
be occasions when he would need guidance to comply with proper procedures. They and
the judge were, we emphasise, dealing with an intelligent and resourceful defendant…

(...)

In all cases

26. Explain to D (in the presence of the jury) the procedure for the [remaining parts of the] trial,
including if appropriate that there are restrictions on D’s right to cross-examine and that an
advocate will be appointed to carry out such cross-examination.104

27. Invite D (in the absence of the jury) to provide materials to be used and questions to be
asked in cross-examination, so that D may be advised as to admissibility and warned as
to consequences.

(Note 104): Section 38 YJCEA and Abbas v. CPS [2015] EWHC 579 (Admin)

For S38 YCJEA see below. The judgment in Abbas v CPS is at the following link, but that was regarding the trial of a man accused of sexual assault and the cross-examination of the victim, in which a solicitor was appointed to do the cross-examination, and there's no apparent relevance to the ongoing trial:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff71e60d03e7f57ea7de0

As for S38 YJCEA (which is not only about youths), this comes into play when s34, s35 or s36 YJCEA apply. But s34 (proceedings for alleged sexual offence) and s35 (child witness) don't apply in this case, so in the present context for s38 there must be s36.

From S38:

Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999

An Act to provide for the referral of offenders under 18 to youth offender panels; to make provision in connection with the giving of evidence or information for the purposes of criminal proceedings; to amend section 51 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994; to make pre-consolidation...

www.legislation.gov.uk

38 Defence representation for purposes of cross-examination.
(1)This section applies where an accused is prevented from cross-examining a witness in person by virtue of section 34, 35 or 36.
(2)Where it appears to the court that this section applies, it must—
(a)invite the accused to arrange for a legal representative to act for him for the purpose of cross-examining the witness; and
(b)require the accused to notify the court, by the end of such period as it may specify, whether a legal representative is to act for him for that purpose.
(3)If by the end of the period mentioned in subsection (2)(b) either—
(a)the accused has notified the court that no legal representative is to act for him for the purpose of cross-examining the witness, or
(b)no notification has been received by the court and it appears to the court that no legal representative is to so act,
the court must consider whether it is necessary in the interests of justice for the witness to be cross-examined by a legal representative appointed to represent the interests of the accused.
(4)If the court decides that it is necessary in the interests of justice for the witness to be so cross-examined, the court must appoint a qualified legal representative (chosen by the court) to cross-examine the witness in the interests of the accused.

Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999

An Act to provide for the referral of offenders under 18 to youth offender panels; to make provision in connection with the giving of evidence or information for the purposes of criminal proceedings; to amend section 51 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994; to make pre-consolidation...

www.legislation.gov.uk

BBM

"S36 Direction prohibiting accused from cross-examining particular witness."
(2 )If it appears to the court—
(a)that the quality of evidence given by the witness on cross-examination—
(i)is likely to be diminished if the cross-examination (or further cross-examination) is conducted by the accused in person, and
(ii)would be likely to be improved if a direction were given under this section, and
(b)that it would not be contrary to the interests of justice to give such a direction,
the court may give a direction prohibiting the accused from cross-examining (or further cross-examining) the witness in person.
(3)In determining whether subsection (2)(a) applies in the case of a witness the court must have regard, in particular, to—
(a) any views expressed by the witness as to whether or not the witness is content to be cross-examined by the accused in person;
(b) the nature of the questions likely to be asked, having regard to the issues in the proceedings and the defence case advanced so far (if any);
(c) any behaviour on the part of the accused at any stage of the proceedings, both generally and in relation to the witness;
(d) any relationship (of whatever nature) between the witness and the accused;
(e) whether any person (other than the accused) is or has at any time been charged in the proceedings with a sexual offence or an offence to which section 35 applies, and (if so) whether section 34 or 35 operates or would have operated to prevent that person from cross-examining the witness in person;
(f) any direction under section 19 which the court has given, or proposes to give, in relation to the witness.

So anyway I haven't found anything about a judge himself reading the cross-examination questions...

There may be other authorities.
The main issue raised by the above seems to be whether or not letting MG put his questions in person would be likely to cause CM's evidence to be of lower quality than if the court were to appoint a legal representative to read them. This is a different issue of course to the issue of whether he shows them to the judge first, which would seem to be what you would expect him to have to do.

On the 2a and 3b issues, I'd expect the judge to ask what the crown thinks. It's not clear at all that the CPS would object to MG putting questions himself. In fact I would go further and suggest that they might prefer the jury to hear his voice. (Bear in mind that they can cross-examine her again after he has questioned her.) Their issue is more likely to be with what her answers might be, and therefore with any questions that might lead to statements by her that they don't wish her to make. And a judge can't pre-vet a witness's answers. (Total speculation - JMO)

 

[dotr]

Re-posts, fwiw..

...
Jun 19, 2024
The jury in the trial of Constance Marten and her partner Mark Gordon has been discharged after failing to reach verdicts.

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

The jury in the trial of Constance Marten and Mark Gordon, who were accused of killing their baby daughter, has been discharged after failing to reach a verdict.

www.yahoo.com

''During deliberations, jurors sent more than 180 questions to the judge about the evidence in the case.''
''On June 3, the judge offered them a majority decision, meaning he would accept a verdict on which at least nine of them agreed.

But on Wednesday morning the jurors indicated that even if they had more time it was unlikely they would be able to reach a unanimous or majority verdict.

After discharging them from further deliberations, the judge said he would be writing to them each individually to excuse them from further jury service for the rest of their lives.''

 

[GreekGal]

Did you find this link, @Alyce?

I also clearly recall this from last week but the link I had seems to have disappeared. It says it's not available now. Strange.

 

[Alyce]

I also clearly recall this from last week but the link I had seems to have disappeared. It says it's not available now. Strange.

Same here. I will ask the Mods to remove the post because I can no longer edit.

 

[Carriep]

I also clearly recall this from last week but the link I had seems to have disappeared. It says it's not available now. Strange.

Perhaps the page is archived either at Archive.is (the second box)

https://archive.is/

or at the Wayback Machine

Wayback Machine

web.archive.org

Edit: ah, I just read the followups about a post here. I didn't realise it had been referred to here. Just to be clear - I'm not encouraging anyone to break site rules or commit contempt of court.

 

[Alyce]

www.thelawpages.com

 

[Alyce]

Constance Marten has said that her family saw her as an “embarrassment” and “will stop at nothing to get what they want”, as she was cross-examined by partner Mark Gordon.
At the Old Bailey on Thursday, Gordon, who is now representing himself, asked Marten about if she recalled vehicles randomly stopping during the period they were together.
Today, Marten told jurors that they were pursued by private investigators, that multiple vehicles they had used stopped working and that she found a GPS tracker on one.
She said: “There’s a few people in my biological family who see me as an embarrassment and are scared I will speak out about them and will stop at nothing to get what they want.”
The defendant added: “Some people who are privileged think they are above the rules.
“It is harrowing, you are up against these people who will stop at nothing, who have endless resources and connections.”
She said on Thursday that her family were prejudiced towards Gordon and did not approve of their relationship


more at the link ..................


https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/251...ross-examined-mark-gordon-old-bailey/?ref=rss

 

[Alyce]

www.courtnewsuk.co.uk