UK - Constance Marten & Mark Gordon charged, Newborn (found deceased), Bolton Greater Manchester, 5 Jan 2023 #4

[Alyce]

Interesting interview with Mark Lucraft, the trial Judge and Recorder of London

An interview with His Honour Judge Mark Lucraft QC, Recorder of London | Legal Insights Europe

Image Credit: REUTERS/John Sibley The impacts of the pandemic have been felt by us all. But one of the little publicised areas that continues to work

legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.co.uk

from the article


What has worked well for us is having dedicated jury deliberation space and putting the jury for a case in that space throughout a trial. It cuts down risks of cross-contamination and also means that retirements to consider verdicts can be shorter as the jury have had more chance to bond in the course of a trial.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I have to say I am very curious to know what the defence argument is going to be.

I feel like for Marten her best line of defense would be a domestically violent relationship extreme coercive control and fragile mental health etc, but it doesn't really seem like the two of them have turned on eachother.

It's going to be interesting, since officially they were just 'missing' as far as it's known, they weren't committing any crime by dodging the police. If Gordon was violating any sort of patrol or licensing conditions, it wasn't made public. I also don't think social services were aware that the baby was on the way, so there wasn't any court order in place to remove the child.

Of course camping midwinter with a newborn you gave birth to in a car is fairly clear neglect, but it's going to narrow down the scope of the offences quite a lot. The gritty details about the line between neglect and parental autonomy will be interesting.

I don't agree with a lot of what you say here.

The couple were knowingly on the run trying to evade social services removing their child IMO. Hence the appeals from her mother. They've been together for many many years and have a long and complex history that will likely be discussed in court but they didn't go fleeing and living in a shed on an allotment because they were just 'going camping' in the middle of winter - they were on the run.

JMO MOO

 

[Alyce]

I don't agree with a lot of what you say here.

The couple were knowingly on the run trying to evade social services removing their child IMO. Hence the appeals from her mother. They've been together for many many years and have a long and complex history that will likely be discussed in court but they didn't go fleeing and living in a shed on an allotment because they were just 'going camping' in the middle of winter - they were on the run.

JMO MOO

I agree totally with this.

It is going to be interesting to see how much of their back story will be allowed in Court.
I think it is extremely relevant but that's just MOO.

Post verdict ( if there is a guilty verdict of course ) I imagine the media will have plenty to say.

 

[jiminy]

Interesting interview with Mark Lucraft, the trial Judge and Recorder of London

An interview with His Honour Judge Mark Lucraft QC, Recorder of London | Legal Insights Europe

Image Credit: REUTERS/John Sibley The impacts of the pandemic have been felt by us all. But one of the little publicised areas that continues to work

legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.co.uk

from the article


What has worked well for us is having dedicated jury deliberation space and putting the jury for a case in that space throughout a trial. It cuts down risks of cross-contamination and also means that retirements to consider verdicts can be shorter as the jury have had more chance to bond in the course of a trial.

I think a lot of courts are still doing that. I know in Edinburgh they were using a cinema for the jury to view remotely at least until last year. (Source: friend who did jury service) I don't know if I'd like that. I'd want to be in the court room and look where and at who I want.

 

[Alyce]

I think a lot of courts are still doing that. I know in Edinburgh they were using a cinema for the jury to view remotely at least until last year. (Source: friend who did jury service) I don't know if I'd like that. I'd want to be in the court room and look where and at who I want.

I don't think it means they are remote from the Courtroom. I read it as the Jury being allocated a private room to go to during their breaks - rather than having to mix in a more public space with jurors from other trials.
I thinks it's a very good system and, as said, allows them to get to know each other before they reach the point where they are sent out to deliberate and reach a verdict.

 

[Teeniesmum]

he was released and deported back to the UK half way through his US sentence so he should have been put onto the register here.

Thank you Alyce. I suppose if he is on the UK register it would list the conditions he must live under here in the UK, which may not exclude new relationships or being a parent, I'm sure it will all come out in court as they say.

 

[Telltale]

I don't agree with a lot of what you say here.

The couple were knowingly on the run trying to evade social services removing their child IMO. Hence the appeals from her mother. They've been together for many many years and have a long and complex history that will likely be discussed in court but they didn't go fleeing and living in a shed on an allotment because they were just 'going camping' in the middle of winter - they were on the run.

JMO MOO

No doubt. What I mean is I don't believe that social services were aware she was pregnant, so would not have gone to court to partition to remove the baby at birth. It's not something they can blanket ban for all future births.

So technically speaking, they were not 'on the run' from any criminal offence (at least Marten probably wasn't, Gordon probably was breaching his conditions.) She would not have broken any laws or court orders by simply having custody of the child (which she has automatically until removed by the court) or by not presenting herself to the police when they were looking for her IMO. Had they found her and the baby safe and well, I am unsure if she'd have committed a crime - though I'm sure she'd have swiftly had custody removed.

(I think) they will have to make their legal argument within the scope of a neglect charge, which won't be difficult IMO. I imagine her past and any motivation when it comes to social services will be very relevant. I am just interested in the angle her defense will take considering the above.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

No doubt. What I mean is I don't believe that social services were aware she was pregnant, so would not have gone to court to partition to remove the baby at birth. It's not something they can blanket ban for all future births.

So technically speaking, they were not 'on the run' from any criminal offence (at least Marten probably wasn't, Gordon probably was breaching his conditions.) She would not have broken any laws or court orders by simply having custody of the child (which she has automatically until removed by the court) or by not presenting herself to the police when they were looking for her IMO. Had they found her and the baby safe and well, I am unsure if she'd have committed a crime - though I'm sure she'd have swiftly had custody removed.

(I think) they will have to make their legal argument within the scope of a neglect charge, which won't be difficult IMO. I imagine her past and any motivation when it comes to social services will be very relevant. I am just interested in the angle her defense will take considering the above.

Not sure about that actually. I know they can put the unborn child on the 'at risk' register as soon as they're aware of the pregnancy and then make arrangements for the child to be removed at birth, if necessary. If CM thought she could give birth in a relatively warm, clean, dry, home with running water and a flushing toilet and SS were not aware, then why go on the run?

Also a key event - the car breaking down and I believe it set alight. They were in a far better circumstance before the car incident as a) they had a car! and b) the placenta was discovered at that point and it was clear CM had birthed a baby, probably live.

 

[Telltale]

Not sure about that actually. I know they can put the unborn child on the 'at risk' register as soon as they're aware of the pregnancy and then make arrangements for the child to be removed at birth, if necessary. If CM thought she could give birth in a relatively warm, clean, dry, home with running water and a flushing toilet and SS were not aware, then why go on the run?

Also a key event - the car breaking down and I believe it set alight. They were in a far better circumstance before the car incident as a) they had a car! and b) the placenta was discovered at that point and it was clear CM had birthed a baby, probably live.

They can, but they do need to go through the process after they've been made aware she's pregnant, they can't just make it apply to all future births.

I suspect this is why they had been moving around and living 'off grid' for a while, probably since they realised she was pregnant again. It was all in an effort to actually be able to keep a kid 'as a family,' IMO. Social services do not have a full countrywide database. Most of the info is very silo'd. So long as they kept their head down, kept moving and didn't get pinged on the NHS database going in for prenatal care, I'm guessing they could keep them in the dark.

I agree it all went to when the car broke down. It doesn't seem like authorities were aware of any baby until they found the car with the afterbirth in it (another question, why in the car? The had money to stay inside). IDK how they worked out who they were, maybe stuff left in the car, maybe they'd actually insured and registered it. Had they not left a bloody and burning car on the side of the road, they probably wouldn't have been looked into too hard. After that they were just running, giving up would be giving up the baby, but it died anyway. Then they just stayed hidden to stay together as long as possible.

(Super speculative) It feels more than just coercive control tbh, from what's seen, it's more like they developed a two person cult. Unless Marten had absolutely glaring safety concerns of her own, her family access to wealth, stability, paid caregivers and good legal council, meant she likely could have kept her kids. If only she left Gordon or complied with social services safeguarding restrictions around his access to them. Seems like she never could, and this is the result. IMO

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I think in certain circumstances, it can be ordered that a person must notify certain authorities if they become pregnant and likewise a GP or healthcare worker who became aware could be obliged to do so also. Most people, no matter how chaotic and / or private don't exist in a vacuum and this is where social services, law enforcement, and welfare agencies can keep an eye on people - when they go to collect their prescriptions or when they attend appointments.

Not saying this has happened. Also it strikes me that what happened was very hurried and unplanned unless the baby came significantly early. Assuming they had some money and a car, why not take a more leisurely stance to relocating? Perhaps the baby came early as a result of the stress of the car breaking down and catching alight? Who knows.

JMO MOO

 

[Telltale]

I think in certain circumstances, it can be ordered that a person must notify certain authorities if they become pregnant and likewise a GP or healthcare worker who became aware could be obliged to do so also. Most people, no matter how chaotic and / or private don't exist in a vacuum and this is where social services, law enforcement, and welfare agencies can keep an eye on people - when they go to collect their prescriptions or when they attend appointments.

Not saying this has happened. Also it strikes me that what happened was very hurried and unplanned unless the baby came significantly early. Assuming they had some money and a car, why not take a more leisurely stance to relocating? Perhaps the baby came early as a result of the stress of the car breaking down and catching alight? Who knows.

JMO MOO

I agree, likely why she'd had no prenatal care. She probably would have had a marker that would have pinged had she gone to the doctors. You are right she might have had such an order in place though I haven't seen any media or charges suggesting it yet

Unfortunately universal databases when it comes to social services, police, medical records etc are very bare bones and not directly accessible by partner agencies. When it comes to the context (esp by unactioned reports/investigations) it's new county new you. Authorities would need a reason to actively trace you back to the last place you lived and request records. (Gordon's offences and registration would be nationally accessable through.)

I remember it took a long time for the police to track where they'd been staying in the months before they (dis)appeared on the side of road. They first found a place they'd been renting like a year before, possibly last registered home address. Which is why my guess is this was triggered by the pregnancy.

I'm guessing you're right and the birth threw them off. Though it would be a hell of a quick delivery if they broke down and baby was out before the car caught on fire (and they got away before fire arrived.) Maybe they were traveling to where Marten was supposed to give birth/recover, but the baby came on route. Then the shitbox car crapped out/caught fire and it went from there. Or maybe I'm giving them too much credit idk.

If this actually gets to a trial we may yet find out.

 

[Alyce]

RSBM). IDK how they worked out who they were, maybe stuff left in the car, maybe they'd actually insured and registered it. Had they not left a bloody and burning car on the side of the road, they probably wouldn't have been looked into too hard. After that they were just running, giving up would be giving up the baby, but it died anyway. Then they just stayed hidden to stay together as long as possible.

Police also discovered 35-year-old Marten’s passport in the car.

TOM RAWSTORNE: Chance spotting of Constance Marten and Mark Gordon

TOM RAWSTORNE: The massive police hunt ended in the way it had begun - with two people, not three. From the beginning of the investigation, the welfare of the child was the main focus of police.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Telltale]

Police also discovered 35-year-old Marten’s passport in the car.

TOM RAWSTORNE: Chance spotting of Constance Marten and Mark Gordon

TOM RAWSTORNE: The massive police hunt ended in the way it had begun - with two people, not three. From the beginning of the investigation, the welfare of the child was the main focus of police.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Ooh well that explains it. Considering the burning car, reports of a woman and baby and the blood/placenta on the back seat, they'd have run her though everywhere and gone oh fuuuu-

You have a good memory for details.

 

[Cedars]

(Super speculative) It feels more than just coercive control tbh, from what's seen, it's more like they developed a two person cult. Unless Marten had absolutely glaring safety concerns of her own, her family access to wealth, stability, paid caregivers and good legal council, meant she likely could have kept her kids. If only she left Gordon or complied with social services safeguarding restrictions around his access to them. Seems like she never could, and this is the result. IMO

It might be that this sense of "you and me against the world" has actually strengthened their bond (or, more particularly, her bond).

JMO

 

[ifindedout]

That explains the date of January 22

Jury to be sworn in over next couple of days - that sounds like a long time to find 12 people

And for a trial that's supposed to last 4 weeks....

 

[Nikynoo]

Not sure about that actually. I know they can put the unborn child on the 'at risk' register as soon as they're aware of the pregnancy and then make arrangements for the child to be removed at birth, if necessary. If CM thought she could give birth in a relatively warm, clean, dry, home with running water and a flushing toilet and SS were not aware, then why go on the run?

Also a key event - the car breaking down and I believe it set alight. They were in a far better circumstance before the car incident as a) they had a car! and b) the placenta was discovered at that point and it was clear CM had birthed a baby, probably live.

I think the baby came earlier than expected and they were planning for CM to give birth outside of the UK. I agree that SS were probably not aware that CM was even pregnant until that car was found. It would also depend on what court order was in place in respect to CM notifying authorities of further pregnancies. I can’t see such being in place as that would (probably) breach her Human Rights. We will have to see what is reported (and whether that reporting is accurate, not speculative).

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I think the baby came earlier than expected and they were planning for CM to give birth outside of the UK. I agree that SS were probably not aware that CM was even pregnant until that car was found. It would also depend on what court order was in place in respect to CM notifying authorities of further pregnancies. I can’t see such being in place as that would (probably) breach her Human Rights. We will have to see what is reported (and whether that reporting is accurate, not speculative).

The idea of that tiny baby coming early in the middle of winter is heartbreaking. To know her parents couldn't do the right thing and go get her help. They must have been very scared and very determined. Or very sick.

I can't see why they'd have fled to that extent if they weren't absolutely certain the baby was being removed from them. If authorities weren't aware, systems usually don't work quickly or effectively enough in the UK for them to be too scared.

Unless they were hiding and fleeing for another reason entirely, ie not related to the baby?

 

[Alyce]

Central Criminal Court​	5​	T20237104​	constance marten mark alton gordon​
Details: Trial (Part Heard) - Resume - 11:00

www.thelawpages.com

 

[Alyce]

Jurors just selected in the case of an aristocrat and her partner accused over the death of their baby ....

It was confirmed this afternoon that a panel of 15 potential jurors have now been selected at the Old Bailey, London.
They were sent away for a week and told they would not be required to return to court until next
Wednesday (January 24).

Judge Mark Lucraft KC told them not to carry out any internet research about the case, which is expected to go on until March 8.

Jury chosen for Constance Marten baby death trial set to begin next week

Jurors just selected in the case of an aristocrat and her partner accused over the death of their baby have been told not to research the case…

www.theargus.co.uk

 

[Telltale]

It might be that this sense of "you and me against the world" has actually strengthened their bond (or, more particularly, her bond).

JMO

I can fix him! If only the evil government would stop taking away our babies and let us be a family!

Honestly those two seem a perfect storm of self-styled victimisation and purebred entitlement. I'm trying not to judge whatever f-ed up dynamic they had going on when there's barely any information on it... Failing though.