Jury discharged in trial of Constance Martin and Mark Gordon

[DontThinkJustDo]

They couldn't agree the verdict. I'm really shocked.

What happens if there isn’t a retrial and they walk free? Will they have SS checking on them regularly to make sure they don’t have another baby and if they do it will be removed ?

You’d have found it impossible to convict them of murder because that’s not what they were charged with!

The charges were:

• concealing a birth
• perverting the course of justice
• Child cruelty
• causing or allowing the death of a child
• manslaughter by gross negligence

For those saying there might be other info we’re not aware of, many of us have listened to the very detailed trial podcasts that set out all the evidence presented to the jury and the public gallery as it’s a public trial.

I imagine they’ll leave the country and probably go on to have more children ☹️

How could they not be found guilty of concealing a birth?!

Exactly ! What on earth could they even attempt to say to make out they didn’t ’oh we Left the placenta as a calling card so you knew therefore we didn’t conceal a birth’ 🤦‍♀️

I agree I don’t understand that as no defence was put forward for concealing a birth or perverting the course of justice and the judge referred to the fact they had admitted to these charges in his summing up.

It's not illegal not to get medical care if you are pregnant or while you are giving birth.

Surely that can’t be allowed to happen ? Guilty or not of any of those charges prior to that they had children removed and the threshold for removal is high - they’ve basically proven SS right to have serious concerns over them being able to safeguard a child yet they potentially could just start afresh ? They should be subject to regular checks to make sure any more babies are looked after

I listened to the trail podcast as it was being aired and I don't think I could've convicted with the case the prosecution put forward.

They couldn't prove how Victoria died, an expert testimony talked about microclimates and how Victoria wouldn't have been cold inside the jacket.

The media has to answer for this also, the vilification of them in the media whilst on the run was only ever going to make their situation more desperate. Being in a fragile state, terrified your baby is going to be (rightly or wrongly) taken away and seeing your face on every street corner will have played a part in the decisions they made.

The burden of proof just wasn't reached.

Also, I may be wrong in this, but concealing the birth of a child. I thought you had up to 6 weeks to register a birth and there are questions about how old Victoria was

No, nobody has said it is, but it’s certainly illegal to give birth and not tell the relevant authorities, which is what concealing a birth is.

Social services aren't allowed to do that unless they are deemed as needing adult social care. They don't (as far as I remember) have contact with their other children so social services have no reason to interfere with their lives.

Also as CM is paranoid if there was any whiff of social services doing that she would kick hell.

That’s irrelevant though , this is about the birth and the fact it wasn’t registered so was concealed

But if there’s no retrial and they are therefore released without conviction, there’s absolutely nothing to stop them leaving the country at which point social services have no say and it will be up to the law/social services of whatever country they go to if they have another child.

As PP pointed out you have 42 days to register a birth.

If no-one can work out how old baby Victoria was then it isn't possible to say whether they broke the law by not doing so in time.

That’s horrendous surely there must be some way to safeguard any future children ? I read that previously there were concerns over her living in a tent in winter with another child - I don’t get all this ‘microclimate’ rubbish. I’ve taken my dc out as newborns in a carrier and worn a baby wearing coat etc and they’ve needed to go home after a certain time you can’t stay out indefinitely plus how do you then change a baby ? They’d get cold then or the alternative is not to change them and they’d have severe skin problems / burns /infection . And where was the warm microclimate when she was in just a thin babygro being thrown about into a forward facing pushchair with no blankets late at night to be taken out in freezing temperatures, seems to me the microclimate is a figment of someone’s imagination

It is possible to say they broke the law, because you still have to register the birth even if the baby dies.

Yes you’re right but how convenient for the pair of them. How sad for their dc and how terrifying for any future dc

You just reminded me I use to wear my DD in a sling from newborn then baby carrier when she was about 4 months old.

I had to be careful how many layers of clothes I put on her particularly as while she was in the sling she could fit under one of my jackets.

(Should add I feel they are as guilty as hell due to making shit up about Yurts. For some reason I watched documentaries about giving birth in extreme climates, and the mortality rate of both women and babies is high due to wide range of factors.)

It just all seems based on legal technicality and deadlines for registering births etc when there’s no evidence of an exact age and the human cost seems to get lost within all of that with the very real prospect of it happening again if they walk free.

I have very recently served on a jury which was discharged - not because we could not reach a verdict, but because the prosecution withdrew its case after the first day of evidence.

People on a jury are just ordinary folks. In fact, it skews to an older more educated demographic as the starting point for choosing a jury is the electoral register. If you are not registered to vote, you won't ever get selected. And how much has been in the press about how a disproportionate number of young people, students and some minorities are not registered? Many people can easily get excused by having their employer write a letter saying how essential they are. On our jury there was a mix of people who were self-employed, teachers, retired folks, public sector workers. Nobody who couldn't follow the evidence or what the judge was saying. I'm not saying that you'll never get someone who is incapable of following the evidence on a jury, but that this was not my experience.

When you are on a jury you are told that you are looking at the specific charges ONLY. The case I served on was a domestic abuse case - do I think the relationship was toxic and there was lots of rows and violence and that the accused was a bit of a bastard? Definitely. Do I think the Crown presented enough evidence for a guilty verdict on the specific charges? Not at all - "being a bit of a bastard" is not a criminal offence. Similarly, you can't find someone guilty of a woolly charge of being a bad parent and making poor decisions. The Crown has to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that crimes were committed.

A deadlocked jury does not mean that they were thick and couldn't understand what was going on, it means that there were strongly held beliefs for both guilty and not guilty, and that neither "side" was prepared to change their minds. In Scotland there are 15 on a jury so there can never be a 50/50 split.

Finally, however many podcasts you've listened to and news articles you have read, you do not have the same information as the jury who sat through hours of evidence each day. Trial by podcast is not a thing.

Yes luckily for them but unfortunately for any future children they should spawn elsewhere.

She also doesn't realise she is risking her own mortality if she does more births like this especially as she gets older.

I was wondering about this, and I'm thinking it may be due to them both having been in custody for the whole time since their baby's body was found? They were arrested on 27th February 2023, her body was found on 1st March and it's never been possible to pinpoint exactly when she died. It's possible that on 27th February, less than 42 days had passed since her birth.

Again disclaimer- I don't do criminal law.

I would hope that somehow Social services will be able to keep them on their radar. They can’t just be allowed to keep having dc when there’s such a huge risk to any baby born to either of them ?

Also according to the BBC news it is the "manslaughter by gross negligence" charge which they couldn't reach a verdict on - which is the most important/key charge you could argue.

So the judge has decided that if they can't reach a verdict on that part of the case, there's no point in looking at the other less important charges.

Concealment of birth is a complicated one. It's about the secret disposal of a baby's dead body in order to hide the fact that you gave birth, not concealing the birth per se. You could conceal a birth in the way most of us would understand it but not have committed this offence. Obviously in this case there is a dead baby, but it appears she died some time after the birth.

It's one of those ones that sounds bitty, but the whole statute has a dubious history and there've been people arguing for it to be repealed for ages- it's from 1861. I'm not that surprised it didn't stick here.