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

[JennieM]

This might sound like a silly question but do they get to meet other than in these court appearances?

For example, if they plan to have the same plea, would they have the chance to meet together with their respective lawyers?

 

[gerbil]

They'd be visited in prison by their legal team afaik, so I doubt it.

 

[JTT]

A couple were 'told off' for smiling at each other during a court appearance in which they were told they will face a trial early next year over the death of their baby daughter.

During today's hearing the pair were seen smiling at each other, causing the custody officers to tell them to stop interacting with one another.

Aristocrat and lover who went on run 'told off' for smiling before trial

Aristocrat Constance Marten and her partner Mark Gordon have been told they will face a trial at the Old Bailey early next year after a brief court appearance this morning

www.mirror.co.uk

Both were reprimanded by custody officers for interacting with one another on at least two occasions after exchanging smiles

Constance Marten and boyfriend told off for smiling in court

The couple went missing for more than 50 days before they were eventually found - but it was too late for little Victoria.

www.express.co.uk

There's no rule against smiling at a co-defendant, and nor can a custody officer decide that there is. On the one hand there is the actual matter of this case, and on the other there are between-the-lines implications in the media to do with things like the non-disclosure of the sex of the baby, MG walking with a stick, and here the behaviour of the defendants and the apparent fact that they love each other.

If the trial goes ahead it will be for a jury to decide guilt or innocence, but really everyone who is interested in the case (as is true in any other jury trial) should want both the prosecution and the defence to put their cases as well as possible so that the jury can fulfil its role as well as possible.

 

[JTT]

Has someone got the link that I think may have been posted to the now blocked thread which was to a long document written by a local social services department giving guidance on (inter alia) what to do when a pregnant woman goes on the run when there are safeguarding considerations?

I checked the current thread and couldn't find it. It included the phrases "notorious 10 golden rules" (a reference to work by Ian Josephs) and also "port alert". Sorry to be a pain, but this was an interesting document and I've spent ages unsuccessfully trying to find it. Thanks for any help with this. (Note: I have no idea whether anything in it is relevant to this case, but it looked interesting as background reading.)

 

[rightsaidfred]

Has someone got the link that I think may have been posted to the now blocked thread which was to a long document written by a local social services department giving guidance on (inter alia) what to do when a pregnant woman goes on the run when there are safeguarding considerations?

I checked the current thread and couldn't find it. It included the phrases "notorious 10 golden rules" (a reference to work by Ian Josephs) and also "port alert". Sorry to be a pain, but this was an interesting document and I've spent ages unsuccessfully trying to find it. Thanks for any help with this. (Note: I have no idea whether anything in it is relevant to this case, but it looked interesting as background reading.)

There's a different version of the same thing for every local area but this is the sort of document

5.20 Pre-birth Child Protection Procedure | Surrey Safeguarding Children Partnership

Safeguarding Unborn Babies - North Yorkshire

Safeguarding Unborn Babies – Pre-Birth Guidance Contents Aim of this Guidance This guidance has been developed in conjunction with North Yorkshire and City of York partner agencies and seeks to assist professionals when considering safeguarding concerns relating to unborn children. It is...

www.safeguardingchildren.co.uk

 

[Zuleika]

Is there a UK lawyer on here who can explain the precise difference between manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter, please?

I'm not a lawyer but I recall seeing it explained somewhere as manslaughter is not knowing your actions would lead to ( cause) someone's death .
.On the other hand gross negligence manslaughter means what it says, you brought about a death by your gross negligence

 

[Earthwindfire]

There's no rule against smiling at a co-defendant, and nor can a custody officer decide that there is. On the one hand there is the actual matter of this case, and on the other there are between-the-lines implications in the media to do with things like the non-disclosure of the sex of the baby, MG walking with a stick, and here the behaviour of the defendants and the apparent fact that they love each other.

If the trial goes ahead it will be for a jury to decide guilt or innocence, but really everyone who is interested in the case (as is true in any other jury trial) should want both the prosecution and the defence to put their cases as well as possible so that the jury can fulfil its role as well as possible.

100% all of this.

 

[jackal67]

There's no rule against smiling at a co-defendant, and nor can a custody officer decide that there is. On the one hand there is the actual matter of this case, and on the other there are between-the-lines implications in the media to do with things like the non-disclosure of the sex of the baby, MG walking with a stick, and here the behaviour of the defendants and the apparent fact that they love each other.

If the trial goes ahead it will be for a jury to decide guilt or innocence, but really everyone who is interested in the case (as is true in any other jury trial) should want both the prosecution and the defence to put their cases as well as possible so that the jury can fulfil its role as well as possible.

What sort of things do you expect we will hear about during the trial? Purely the death of Victoria or will any past history of offences ,social services involvement, any other children that they may have had for example.

 

[dotr]

Has someone got the link that I think may have been posted to the now blocked thread which was to a long document written by a local social services department giving guidance on (inter alia) what to do when a pregnant woman goes on the run when there are safeguarding considerations?

I checked the current thread and couldn't find it. It included the phrases "notorious 10 golden rules" (a reference to work by Ian Josephs) and also "port alert". Sorry to be a pain, but this was an interesting document and I've spent ages unsuccessfully trying to find it. Thanks for any help with this. (Note: I have no idea whether anything in it is relevant to this case, but it looked interesting as background reading.)

@JTT, quick search have not yet read to verify, this link?

Helping parents leave the jurisdiction | Child Protection Resource

''We also know that some in the network put their money where their mouth is. One who openly admits giving cash to parents to help them leave the country, is Ian Josephs. He is based in Monaco and is the author of the infamous ‘ten Golden Rules’ which advises parents not to co-operate with social workers and to think very carefully before reporting even sexual abuse of your children.

BBC Radio 4’s Face the Facts programme in January 2014 ‘Forced Adoption and the Mums on the Run’ examined the network of people helping parents leave the UK rather than face investigation.

Mr Josephs was interviewed and confirmed that he has spent about £30,000 helping parents and he did not conduct any kind of risk assessment about the danger these parents might pose to their children. An article in the Daily Mirror in July 2014 confirmed this figure and said it involved 200 families.

Ian Josephs helped Marie Black leave the UK. She wrote to him from France. ''

 

[Cherwell]

What sort of things do you expect we will hear about during the trial? Purely the death of Victoria or will any past history of offences, social services involvement, any other children that they may have had for example.

Very possibly, but expect reporting restrictions if anything like that is brought in as evidence.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

There's no rule against smiling at a co-defendant, and nor can a custody officer decide that there is. On the one hand there is the actual matter of this case, and on the other there are between-the-lines implications in the media to do with things like the non-disclosure of the sex of the baby, MG walking with a stick, and here the behaviour of the defendants and the apparent fact that they love each other.

If the trial goes ahead it will be for a jury to decide guilt or innocence, but really everyone who is interested in the case (as is true in any other jury trial) should want both the prosecution and the defence to put their cases as well as possible so that the jury can fulfil its role as well as possible.

Totally agree with this statement. However, I do think it's likely that anyone from custody officers / court security / and or any legal professional or judge present can intervene if they believe the 'communication' is disruptive to proceedings or maybe that some form of body language messaging is taking place between the two, unsure, does anyone know?

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I'm not a lawyer but I recall seeing it explained somewhere as manslaughter is not knowing your actions would lead to ( cause) someone's death .
.On the other hand gross negligence manslaughter means what it says, you brought about a death by your gross negligence

If gross negligence were caused by people who are literally incapable of comprehending that their conduct could lead to a death because of say mental health problems, substance use, learning disabilities, cognitive difficulties* etc, would that still count as gross negligence?

*not saying that any of these issues apply in this case whatsoever, just curious

 

[Zuleika]

If gross negligence were caused by people who are literally incapable of comprehending that their conduct could lead to a death because of say mental health problems, substance use, learning disabilities, cognitive difficulties* etc, would that still count as gross negligence?

*not saying that any of these issues apply in this case whatsoever, just curious

Good question !
I expect the defence lawyers together with psychiatrists will be working on those .

INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER BY GROSS NEGLIGENCE​

If a person owes a duty of care to another individual and is negligent to a severe enough degree to cause the death of the victim, they may be liable for involuntary manslaughter by gross negligence.
When prosecuting for this, the courts will look for the following elements:

• The defendant owed the victim a duty of care
• The defendant breached this duty of care
• The breach was responsible for the death of the victim
• The negligence was gross, showing a significant disregard for the life and safety of others.

Should these elements be established as true, the defendant may be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter. In cases where a company is in breach of its duty of care, they may face a charge of corporate manslaughter

INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER SENTENCING​

Sentencing guidelines for involuntary manslaughter depend on the culpability of the individual committing the crime. Although all sentences are significant, maximum punishments do differ.

Someone who has been sentenced to time in prison for involuntary manslaughter may serve part of their sentence in the community, subject to recall to prison. This period will usually make up half of the total sentence time.

An individual found guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence faces a custodial sentence of up to 12 years. On the other hand, those found guilty of manslaughter by unlawful or dangerous act face a custodial sentence of up to 18 years

 

[elliefant]

Is there a UK lawyer on here who can explain the precise difference between manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter, please?

The Crown Prosecution Service advises us:

Murder and manslaughter are two of the offences that constitute homicide.

Manslaughter can be committed in one of three ways:

1. Killing with the intent for murder but where a partial defence applies, namely loss of control, diminished responsibility or killing pursuant to a suicide pact.
2. Conduct that was grossly negligent given the risk of death, and did kill ("gross negligence manslaughter"); and
3. Conduct taking the form of an unlawful act involving a danger of some harm that resulted in death ("unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter").

The term "involuntary manslaughter" is commonly used to describe manslaughter falling within (2) and (3) while (1) is referred to as "voluntary manslaughter".

link : Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter | The Crown Prosecution Service

 

[elliefant]

For point 1 above “with the intent for murder”. Intent for murder is defined as

The necessary intention exists if the defendant feels sure that death, or serious bodily harm, is a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that this was the case - R v Matthews (Darren John) [2003] EWCA Crim 192.

link : Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter | The Crown Prosecution Service (under Intent)

 

[elliefant]

If gross negligence were caused by people who are literally incapable of comprehending that their conduct could lead to a death because of say mental health problems, substance use, learning disabilities, cognitive difficulties* etc, would that still count as gross negligence?

*not saying that any of these issues apply in this case whatsoever, just curious

I think this will be covered here, if you fancy checking it out, but I haven’t been able to read beyond the below bits I have copied across

Link : Mental Health: Suspects and Defendants with Mental Health Conditions or Disorders | The Crown Prosecution Service

Principles​

This guidance identifies the principles relevant to the decision to prosecute, and any prosecution which follows, of individuals who have:

• A mental disorder, as defined by the Mental Health Act 2007
• A learning disability
• A learning difficulty
• Autism Spectrum Disorder
• An acquired brain injury
• Dementia
• Other mental health, cognitive or neuro-diverse conditions.

Further information about such conditions can be found at Annex A. This guidance therefore seeks to inform the decision to prosecute in respect of a span of conditions which comprise disorders, disabilities, impairments, injuries and diseases, which relate both to the brain and the mind.

Outside the ambit of this guidance, prosecutors will more broadly have regard to the mental functioning of a suspect or defendant even where this is not reflected in a recognised condition: when assessing the individual suspects mens rea; when considering their maturity - in the case of young adults who continue to mature into their mid-twenties - and in recognising neurodiversity, the variations in the human brain and the mental functions of suspects and defendants.

There is a very wide span of mental health conditions or disorders, and each will impact on individuals in different ways. The fact that someone has a mental health condition or disorder may be relevant to the offence, but it may not. For this reason, prosecutors should approach each case on its own facts and merits and assess the nature, extent and effect of the condition on an individual, together with the circumstances of the particular offences. Mental health conditions or disorders are not always a constant: they may fluctuate, including being different at the time of an alleged offence to the different stages of any prosecution.

While some mental health conditions or disorders are distinct and easily defined, there are also crossovers and individuals may have a number of related conditions. For example, autism is often diagnosed alongside other conditions, such as learning disabilities and/or difficulties. Multiple complex issues may be involved, for instance, personality disorder or post-traumatic stress disorder, combined with substance misuse. Where this is the case, it will be important to understand the combined impact on the behaviour and capabilities of the individual concerned.

[…]

Partial defences to murder: diminished responsibility​

Section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957, as amended, provides that a person is liable for conviction for manslaughter and not murder if they kill another person, or are party to the killing of another person, but prove, on the balance of probabilities, that they were suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which must (i) arise from a recognised medical condition; (ii) substantially impair the suspect's ability to understand the nature of their conduct, form a rational judgment and/or exercise self-control (as to jury directions on "substantially impair", see Golds [2016] UKSC 61); and (iii) provides an explanation for their acts or omissions in killing.

Voluntary acute intoxication cannot found diminished responsibility: Dowds [2012] EWCA Crim 281. In cases where a defendant who suffered from a mental abnormality was also intoxicated the correct approach is for the jury to ignore the effects of intoxication and to ask whether the defendant's other condition(s) of mental abnormality substantially impaired their responsibility for the killing: Dietschmann[2003] UKHL 10. A defendant who wishes to rely on the partial defence must either demonstrate that the intoxication was involuntary or that notwithstanding the voluntary intoxication, the recognised medical condition substantially impaired responsibility for the killing: Joyce, Kay [2017] EWCA Crim 647.


This part implies that a manslaughter conviction is possible in such mental health circumstances

 

[Cuko]

The Crown Prosecution Service advises us:

Murder and manslaughter are two of the offences that constitute homicide.

Manslaughter can be committed in one of three ways:

1. Killing with the intent for murder but where a partial defence applies, namely loss of control, diminished responsibility or killing pursuant to a suicide pact.
2. Conduct that was grossly negligent given the risk of death, and did kill ("gross negligence manslaughter"); and
3. Conduct taking the form of an unlawful act involving a danger of some harm that resulted in death ("unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter").

The term "involuntary manslaughter" is commonly used to describe manslaughter falling within (2) and (3) while (1) is referred to as "voluntary manslaughter".

link : Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter | The Crown Prosecution Service

Thanks @elliefant for posting this.

 

[MsMiniSleuth]

This might sound like a silly question but do they get to meet other than in these court appearances?

For example, if they plan to have the same plea, would they have the chance to meet together with their respective lawyers?

No, absolutely not.

 

[CaptainNancy]

What sort of things do you expect we will hear about during the trial? Purely the death of Victoria or will any past history of offences ,social services involvement, any other children that they may have had for example.

In the UK previous convictions are not disclosed as part of the trial, and disclosed to the judge prior to sentencing if found guilty. To guard against influencing the jury. Any evidence of social services involvement over any other children would be subject to strict reporting conditions, before or after any verdict.

Not sure how it would be handled during the trial if, for theoretical example, there was a previous conviction that was the basis for any theoretical SS involvement prior to their flight.

In previous trials involving the death of a child SS involvement over that child (not others connected to the family) has been made public following a guilty verdict.

 

[JennieM]

Constance Marten: Brighton officer awarded by Sussex Police​

The search for a missing baby which ended in tragedy "hit home for everyone," a sergeant leading the investigation said.

The Argus spoke with Sussex Police Sergeant Alec Barrett after he won an award for his work on one of the largest missing people searches in recent years.

He led the team running door to door enquiries in the days following the arrest of missing Constance Marten and Mark Gordon, who were found without their baby girl on February 27.

Sgt Barrett said his job was to "uncover evidence, witnesses and CCTV before it got lost to time, to achieve the best result when it gets to court." in and around the Hollingdean area of Brighton, where the pair were found after 54 days on the run.

He said: "This was the largest area I had covered for house to house and CCTV trawling."

[...]

The officer of 15 years said that the close-knit team found it hard to manage their emotions as the events unfolded.

He said: "In the early stages we were very much working with the information that the child could well be alive.

"So we put in every effort and ounce of our ability to try and find them.

"We thought every effort could locate that child, and they would still be alive and we could save them.

"But once we got the update and our operation became part of evidence recovery rather than a lifesaving excercise, it hit home for everyone.

"I'm a parent, some of my team are parents."

[...]

He said: "It hit the community very hard too. People are not naive enough to know these events don't happen, but to have it so close to your doorstep is something different.

"And that the suspects had walked outside their house and in their local area."

The sergeant was awarded by Detective Superintendent Rachel Carr at the Brighton and Hove Police divisional awards ceremony on Tuesday.

She said: "Alec was one of the first supervisors on scene. He set clear direction and ensured a professional response to an extremely difficult incident to manage.

"Alec was paramount in leading the house to house enquiries to support the investigation. He worked tirelessly to maximise resources.

"The staff working under his leadership highlighted how well they were managed. Through challenging circumstances, Alec kept the team focused and motivated and this resulted in officers and staff representing Sussex Police in an extremely positive light and ensuring the investigation was completed effectively."

Following investigations by Sussex and the Metropolitan Police forces, Constance Marten and Mark Gordon were charged with gross negligence manslaughter, concealing the birth of a child and perverting the course of justice.

They are due to enter their pleas on August 18.

'We put in every ounce of our ability to find her' - Sergeant on tragic baby search

The search for a missing baby which ended in tragedy "hit home for everyone," a sergeant leading the investigation said after he won an…

www.theargus.co.uk