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

[Nikynoo]

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?

Possibly, but I think their thought process was, if SS find out about this baby, it will be removed too. We don’t know the reasons why other children were removed, but IMO it is likely those issues have not been resolved.

I really do think they (or just CM) were planning on leaving the UK, but the pregnancy progressed faster than they anticipated.

 

[JTT]

Four to six weeks doesn't sound long.

I guess it's all pretty straightforward in legal terms? even though it makes my mind boggle.

Also quite surprisingly quick in terms of the fact that it seems the defendants aren't co-operative type of people, have probably disputed and conflicted one another and also denied everything, are unlikely to have agreed basic facts which means LE and the prosecution will have to present every shred of evidence to a point where the jury can find no reasonable doubt.

Just my speculation. Let's wait and see. JMO MOO

Four to six weeks doesn't sound long.

I guess it's all pretty straightforward in legal terms? even though it makes my mind boggle.

Also quite surprisingly quick in terms of the fact that it seems the defendants aren't co-operative type of people, have probably disputed and conflicted one another and also denied everything, are unlikely to have agreed basic facts which means LE and the prosecution will have to present every shred of evidence to a point where the jury can find no reasonable doubt.

Just my speculation. Let's wait and see. JMO MOO

When a defendant pleads not guilty in crown court, the CPS always have to bring evidence to prove their case so that the jurors can be satisfied that they're sure the defendant did what they're charged with. E.g. in this case if the cruelty charge remains on the indictment it must be proved by evidence.

Mark Lucraft is the senior circuit judge at the Bailey. He was also the Chief Coroner for England and Wales between 2016 and 2020.

Tom Little is Senior Treasury Counsel, but FWIW he isn't the First STC - he's one of six who hold the next rank down.

Treasury Counsel | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

 

[JTT]

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

Agreed. It can happen that potential jurors are asked questions so that those who may not be sure they can try the case without prejudice can be excluded.

There can also be extensive legal argument before the jurors are sworn in, or after they're sworn in and before the prosecution opens its case.

Edit:

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

"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)."

That would be consistent with a lot of legal argument going on. If the case had been adjourned for a week, that would surely be reported.

 

[JTT]

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 won't be surprised if there is a defence of necessity to the charge of concealing the birth, the necessity being asserted to have been due to SS misfeasance; nor if the crown's position on the physical cause of death and whether it is sufficiently supported by forensics is strongly challenged. (Just my speculation.)

Anyway what happened with the case against Mark Gordon for failing to comply with the notification requirements of the sex offenders' register, brought in Bromley magistrates' court?

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I won't be surprised if there is a defence of necessity to the charge of concealing the birth, the necessity being asserted to have been due to SS misfeasance; nor if the crown's position on the physical cause of death and whether it is sufficiently supported by forensics is strongly challenged. (Just my speculation.)

Anyway what happened with the case against Mark Gordon for failing to comply with the notification requirements of the sex offenders' register, brought in Bromley magistrates' court?

Good question!

Posting a link to The Argus as it's the first return I got but seems as per the Judge's comments, that he can't be compelled to attend. Personally I don't understand that but IANAL and it's in her words:

Constance Marten’s partner Mark Gordon refuses to appear in court

The partner of an aristocrat accused of the manslaughter of their baby refused to appear in court.

www.theargus.co.uk

 

[iamshadow21]

Good question!

Posting a link to The Argus as it's the first return I got but seems as per the Judge's comments, that he can't be compelled to attend. Personally I don't understand that but IANAL and it's in her words:

Constance Marten’s partner Mark Gordon refuses to appear in court

The partner of an aristocrat accused of the manslaughter of their baby refused to appear in court.

www.theargus.co.uk

He can't. Both Letby and the defendants in the recent Brianna Ghey case had times where they did not attend.

MOO

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

He can't. Both Letby and the defendants in the recent Brianna Ghey case had times where they did not attend.

MOO

Can't what? Attend? Or be compelled to attend? Or not attend?

I understand that a defendant may be too unwell or incapacitated to make it to court but clearly the judge is implying that MG is playing a game. How long can this go on for? How will this case be conducted if MG is too unwell (either genuinely or fraudulently) to attend court?

 

[iamshadow21]

Can't what? Attend? Or be compelled to attend? Or not attend?

I understand that a defendant may be too unwell or incapacitated to make it to court but clearly the judge is implying that MG is playing a game. How long can this go on for? How will this case be conducted if MG is too unwell (either genuinely or fraudulently) to attend court?

He can't compel the defendant to stand in the courtroom. I think the most they can do is bus him from the gaol.

MOO

 

[rightsaidfred]

I suspect that MG will find himself more motivated to attend these court hearings - at least the early ones. It comes with the sweetener of seeing CM, and they were told off for communicating in the dock at an earlier hearing, in a way which suggested they very much considered themselves to still be in a relationship.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

He can't compel the defendant to stand in the courtroom. I think the most they can do is bus him from the gaol.

MOO

Well yes the judge has said she can't compel to attend the hearing if he keeps claiming to be in pain. However, I don't know what legislation would cover this but sooner or later, someone surely has to answer to their crime?

What if MG refuses to attend the upcoming hearing to answer to these charges? At what point does a person remain detained on remand in a prison with a court hearing hanging over them but 'refuse' to attend?

And how does that work with a judge and jury and barristers being paid from the public purse to ensure justice is done? Would he be sentenced in his absence eventually?

ETA: Seems to be the judge and prison was saying they can't use force to drag him out of his cell if he's claiming to be too unwell? Surely they can!? Eventually, if a medical doctor has seen him?

 

[iamshadow21]

Well yes the judge has said she can't compel to attend the hearing if he keeps claiming to be in pain. However, I don't know what legislation would cover this but sooner or later, someone surely has to answer to their crime?

What if MG refuses to attend the upcoming hearing to answer to these charges? At what point does a person remain detained on remand in a prison with a court hearing hanging over them but 'refuse' to attend?

And how does that work with a judge and jury and barristers being paid from the public purse to ensure justice is done? Would he be sentenced in his absence eventually?

ETA: Seems to be the judge and prison was saying they can't use force to drag him out of his cell if he's claiming to be too unwell? Surely they can!? Eventually, if a medical doctor has seen him?

Prosecutors urged to consider power to compel defendants to attend court | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

Defendant’s refusal to attend Court | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

He can hang out in his cell all he likes, there are guidelines in place that allow the case to proceed without him.

MOO

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Prosecutors urged to consider power to compel defendants to attend court | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

Defendant’s refusal to attend Court | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

He can hang out in his cell all he likes, there are guidelines in place that allow the case to proceed without him.

MOO

Looks like it could still cause quite some disruption, going by the rules.

One wonders if these parents would not want to tell their piteous story to the judge and jury, if only in the name of showing that they wanted to keep their baby, not kill her, at least to honour the child forever more on record. However, I suspect that's not how these legal wranglings work

JMO MOO

 

[JTT]

Prosecutors urged to consider power to compel defendants to attend court | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

Defendant’s refusal to attend Court | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

He can hang out in his cell all he likes, there are guidelines in place that allow the case to proceed without him.

MOO

I don't know where you get this from, that he can hang out in his cell all he likes. A judge or magistrate can certainly compel a defendant to attend trial, and if the defendant is adjudged well enough to attend, that's what they will do. Remand means that a court orders the person to be in custody or out on bail until they're required back in the dock. That's true even for minor charges.

According to news reports MG said he was in severe pain and he asked to be examined by a medic before getting in the vehicle to go to Bromley, but no medic was provided. Had a medic been provided, the medic would have reported to the court on the defendant's condition and whether or not he was well enough to attend court. If a medic had said he was well enough, the magistrate would have said you're coming to this court, matey, on a bench warrant. If the report said he wasn't well enough, then he wouldn't have had to attend. Defendants have rights. All defendants, including convicted rapists. If nobody managed to get it together to send a medic to examine the defendant, or he got caught in traffic or something, then that's tough on the court.

At this later time, though, if he's well enough to attend the Old Bailey, he's surely well enough to attend Bromley. The police said they wanted to get the non-notification case out of the way before the trial started at the Bailey. I'm not sure I like the sound of that, or at least how it was handled. I do hope the OB trial hasn't been prejudiced by the absence of a reporting ban on a hearing in another court only a short time before the OB trial, in relation to which there were press reports referencing MG's sex offender registration in connection with a rape he committed in the 1980s. He does not stand accused of a sex offence now. Even if he did (and I have to emphasise that he doesn't), the 1980s rape would not be evidence of guilt of a 2023 offence, even a similar one. He's entitled to be tried on the evidence and only on the evidence. I don't know what has happened in the Bromley case. My speculation would be it has probably been adjourned until after the Bailey trial. It won't surprise me if a defence of necessity is offered to the non-notification charge at Bromley AND to the birth non-registration charge at the Bailey, but...speculation only.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Does anyone know if MG was either working somewhere or eligible for and claiming state benefits and / or disability benefits prior to fleeing? Or was he unofficially residing in the UK? Was he a wanted man aside from the 'failure to register' case?

 

[rightsaidfred]

Does anyone know if MG was either working somewhere or eligible for and claiming state benefits and / or disability benefits prior to fleeing? Or was he unofficially residing in the UK? Was he a wanted man aside from the 'failure to register' case?

The DM reported, back in January, an unnamed source which suggested CM had some odd jobs and MG didn't work... though it seems mildly surprising that she was picking up odd jobs if she also had access to the multi million pound trust fund they also report

Man who disappeared with aristocrat partner and baby is a sex offender

A father being sought by police after disappearing with a missing aristocrat and their baby daughter is a convicted sex offender who has spent more than 20 years behind bars.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Telltale]

The DM reported, back in January, an unnamed source which suggested CM had some odd jobs and MG didn't work... though it seems mildly surprising that she was picking up odd jobs if she also had access to the multi million pound trust fund they also report

Man who disappeared with aristocrat partner and baby is a sex offender

A father being sought by police after disappearing with a missing aristocrat and their baby daughter is a convicted sex offender who has spent more than 20 years behind bars.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Has it been confirmed she actually has access to this trust? I know police were worried she did when they were missing - or access to people who could give her a lot of money. Nothing I've seen seems to suggest they ever lived or acted like they had any real money at all.

 

[nb93x]

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.

Children’s services are unable to get a care order for an unborn child, orders can only be issued once born which may be why they ran

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Children’s services are unable to get a care order for an unborn child, orders can only be issued once born which may be why they ran

This is untrue. An unborn child can be put on a 'Pre-Birth Child Protection Plan' in law, Under the Children Act 1989, here is the legislation:

Legal position relating to unborn children - childlawadvice.org.uk

This page explains the rights of father's before the child is born as well as any Children's Services involvement prior to the mother giving birth

childlawadvice.org.uk

Personally, I only know this for sure as I know someone who had this happen to them. Their unborn baby was put on then 'At Risk' register and the birth was supervised, baby removed 20 minutes after birth - she was allowed 20 mins, I don't know if that is a regular thing or not. There were compelling reasons for this terrible situation.

JMO but I speculate CM and MG were au fait with the situation and this caused them to wish to flee prior the birth. If the authorities weren't aware of the impending child birth, then they'd have had no reason to flee. Unless they were on the run for separate reasons, such as evading other criminal charges or hiding from hit men, which would be extremely coincidental and unlikely to me.

I do wonder if the baby came suddenly and early, possibly as a result of the stress of the car breaking down -or- they began to flee when CM's contractions started and it was a race against time as to where the baby would be born?

I'm finding it difficult to comprehend why they didn't rent an Air BnB for six months or something. Also breaking and entering, there's gotta be more viable warm and dry abandoned spaces / empty houses / closed down shops / abandoned industrial unit or such than an allotment shed?

JMO MOO

 

[Lucy6226]

This is untrue. An unborn child can be put on a 'Pre-Birth Child Protection Plan' in law, Under the Children Act 1989, here is the legislation:

Legal position relating to unborn children - childlawadvice.org.uk

This page explains the rights of father's before the child is born as well as any Children's Services involvement prior to the mother giving birth

childlawadvice.org.uk

Personally, I only know this for sure as I know someone who had this happen to them. Their unborn baby was put on then 'At Risk' register and the birth was supervised, baby removed 20 minutes after birth - she was allowed 20 mins, I don't know if that is a regular thing or not. There were compelling reasons for this terrible situation.

JMO but I speculate CM and MG were au fait with the situation and this caused them to wish to flee prior the birth. If the authorities weren't aware of the impending child birth, then they'd have had no reason to flee. Unless they were on the run for separate reasons, such as evading other criminal charges or hiding from hit men, which would be extremely coincidental and unlikely to me.

I do wonder if the baby came suddenly and early, possibly as a result of the stress of the car breaking down -or- they began to flee when CM's contractions started and it was a race against time as to where the baby would be born?

I'm finding it difficult to comprehend why they didn't rent an Air BnB for six months or something. Also breaking and entering, there's gotta be more viable warm and dry abandoned spaces / empty houses / closed down shops / abandoned industrial unit or such than an allotment shed?

JMO MOO

Yes, but only a court order can remove children/babies from their family or the police. Outside of this the parents could sign a Section 20, which is a voluntary agreement for the local authority to accommodate the child. The parents retain parental responsibility with a S20.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Yes, but only a court order can remove children/babies from their family or the police. Outside of this the parents could sign a Section 20, which is a voluntary agreement for the local authority to accommodate the child. The parents retain parental responsibility with a S20.

I'm sure that relevant authorities back up their intentions lawfully signed court orders?

Otherwise the law would mean nothing to anyone and no baby would ever be taken to a place of safety at birth.

The person I know of did not volunteer anything, their baby was delivered under supervision and removed very much against their wishes. Which was absolutely the right thing to do in that instance IMO.

But my point being is if CM and MG did not believe their baby was to be 'snatched' then they would have had no reason to flee in the middle of winter, they could have stayed put or even just relocated and not particularly notified anyone.

JMO MOO