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

[Carriep]

Just thinking ahead: if the defendants are acquitted of the charges they're currently on trial for, and then they appeal against the 2 (3?) guilty verdicts from last year on the other charges, would sentencing on the latter be further deferred, pending the outcome of the appeal?

If things go down that route, it will be interesting to see whether the CPS contest the appeal.

Even if they don't, the appeal court could still uphold the convictions. Or they could allow the appeal. But could they also order a retrial? It seems a bit peculiar if they could, given that the CPS would surely not want to prosecute, but what does the law say?

 

[bbsaz]

BBM
that has been my thoughts too. Give an explanation for a death "that could happen to anyone".
CM has shown to be quite the liar, so who's to say that the death happened as she said.
For the record, even IF this was the case I still blame them.
Breastfeeding in a cold and damp tent, in winter with no proper nutrition and sanitation is hardly responsible and caring patenting.

Well exactly, it was entirely their choice to be in that tent, so the consequences of that irresponsible decision are on them.

Hypothermia, suffocation, malnutrition, Constance falling on her, whichever way Victoria passed, is because of their choice to be in that tent. They didn't need to be, they choose to be.

 

[bbsaz]

Just thinking ahead: if the defendants are acquitted of the charges they're currently on trial for, and then they appeal against the 2 (3?) guilty verdicts from last year on the other charges, would sentencing on the latter be further deferred, pending the outcome of the appeal?

If things go down that route, it will be interesting to see whether the CPS contest the appeal.

Even if they don't, the appeal court could still uphold the convictions. Or they could allow the appeal. But could they also order a retrial? It seems a bit peculiar if they could, given that the CPS would surely not want to prosecute, but what does the law say?

I don't think you can appeal hiding the birth of a child when you hid the birth of a child.

 

[Maltesepuppy]

Well exactly, it was entirely their choice to be in that tent, so the consequences of that irresponsible decision are on them.

Hypothermia, suffocation, malnutrition, Constance falling on her, whichever way Victoria passed, is because of their choice to be in that tent. They didn't need to be, they choose to be.

And like someone pointed some time ago they waited until CM was about to give birth to go "on the run".
They had months to come with a better plan, money from the trust and CM had an university education.
It's more than most people have.
Victoria may have been at the same risk that her siblings but at least she would be alive if they had taken action when they knew about the pregnancy.
Instead they ended up burning money on taxis and sleeping in a cheap argos tent without the basics for survival.
If that doesn't say chaotic, reactive and Iacking consequential planning, I don't know what does.

 

[CaptainNancy]

I don't think you can appeal hiding the birth of a child when you hid the birth of a child.

They were found guilty of concealing the birth of a child, and perverting the course of justice.

Since their whole enterprise was with the purpose of concealing the birth of their child so that they could take her abroad I would agree: very very hard to get permission to appeal that.

Ditto PTCOJ, which referred to the hiding of the body the result of which was that no post mortem could determine the cause of death. Again… they failed to report the baby’s death, and hid the body. So…

I don’t think you can just choose to appeal as if it is a parking fine, the court has to agree to an appeal. And I think there has to be new evidence.

But who knows, maybe Judge Lucraft will miss his days in court with CM & MG and welcome them back for an appeal.

 

[Carriep]

I don't think you can appeal hiding the birth of a child when you hid the birth of a child.

You are mistaken. See what is called the defence of necessity. Numerous authorities on this are gathered here:

https://gardencourtchambers.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/old/1593508727-protest_webinar.pdf

Cf. if a person has been convicted of assault etc.

True of course that they would have to get leave to appeal, which is usually issued by a single judge at the court of appeal, not by the trial judge.

 

[bbsaz]

So, assuming you are going with the necessity option, it states the following:



Therefore, do you believe that social services intervening to protect Victoria (in the same way they had with their 4 previous children) would be evil?

And so they hid the birth of Victoria to avoid evil being inflicted on her, by potentially being taken into care? But the actual outcome was her death by malnutrition/suffocation/hypothermia, as close to evil as I think you can get.

 

[Alyce]

This morning's schedule


www.thelawpages.com

 

[CaptainNancy]

You are mistaken. See what is called the defence of necessity. Numerous authorities on this are gathered here:

https://gardencourtchambers.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/old/1593508727-protest_webinar.pdf

Cf. if a person has been convicted of assault etc.

True of course that they would have to get leave to appeal, which is usually issued by a single judge at the court of appeal, not by the trial judge.

I think the pp was commenting on the likely reality rather than the legal theory. Given the need for leave to appeal.

 

[jackal67]

Being reminded of their day to day during their time living rough … did CM get enough nutrition, fluids and rest to actually feed Victoria enough for her to thrive? Wonder, if baby was sleeping from getting full after a feed or sleeping due to lack of milk, lack of energy calories.

I wondered this too. I doubt CM was eating and drinking enough to have an adequate milk supply

 

[Baby baby Jane]

I wondered this too. I doubt CM was eating and drinking enough to have an adequate milk supply

Agree and possibly, weak baby cannot suck properly to get enough feed, is weak and sleepy, and then next feed cannot suck properly gets more weak, cannot cry, possibly mother doesn’t realise baby in decline…

cycle continues

 

[jackal67]

Agree and possibly, weak baby cannot suck properly to get enough feed, is weak and sleepy, and then next feed cannot suck properly gets more weak, cannot cry, possibly mother doesn’t realise baby in decline…

cycle continues

Having had 4 previous babies she should have known though !

 

[Baby baby Jane]

Having had 4 previous babies she should have known though !

100%!!
she would have known, which is why this is no Accident.

 

[Alyce]

Today's schedule


www.thelawpages.com

 

[MessyLee]

I just can't with CM's narcissistic approach to this trial. JMO

 

[Alyce]

Defendant sworn ?


www.thelawpages.com

 

[Carriep]

Defendant sworn ?


www.thelawpages.com

View attachment 587601

If this is CM preparing to be cross-examined by the prosecution (there are several other possibilities), I wonder how long the crown will keep her in the box this time. I think they questioned her for about 6? days at the first trial.

<modsnip - off topic>

EDIT
Well it isn't CM. It's MG giving evidence.

Constance Marten’s partner claims baby only died because of police manhunt

‘We had become deranged a little bit. We were off our heads,’ Gordon told jurors

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Carriep]

Has CM closed her case?

Presumably MG is making a sworn statement from the box, on his own behalf, as he is entitled to as a self-representing defendant.

 

[Alyce]

Judge Mark Lucraft KC previously told the jurors that from now on Gordon was going to represent himself after his barristers withdrew from the case.

Taking to the witness stand, Gordon blamed the decision for the police to launch a manhunt to search for them, saying: “If it had naturally played out, I believe the baby would still be alive today, 100 per cent, because ultimately we would have done the right thing.”

He said that he and Marten were already in a “scared state” after accusing private investigators of trailing them, and felt that they were “being harassed by various forces and this impacted our minds”.

“We had become deranged a little bit. We were off our heads,” Gordon told jurors.

Gesturing towards jurors, he said that police officers should have undertaken a risk assessment and realised that he and his wife were “panicked” and “afraid”.

Who gave the command to do a national manhunt, we weren’t in the right state of mind,” he said.

He continued: “If you have a woman who has just given birth to a child … why chase them if there is fragility? If that manhunt had not begun, things would not have happened. I had no intention to live in a tent.

“To chase two parents who love their baby. We did not want the baby to come to harm.

“It was the chase that precipitated these events. We were not in the state of mind where a sound decision can be made.”

“It has culminated in this courtroom sitting in a dock with 12 jurors deciding our fate,” he said.



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

Constance Marten’s partner claims baby only died because of police manhunt

‘We had become deranged a little bit. We were off our heads,’ Gordon told jurors

www.independent.co.uk

 

[bbsaz]

Has he not just admitted guilt in the statement above? One charge is causing the death of a child, and he has just said the baby 100% died because we didn't do the right thing and hand her in?