Page 2 | Sentencing for Constance Marten / Mark Gordon

BalladOfBarryAndFreda · 15/09/2025 15:49

What's the point of concurrent sentencing? The shorter sentences/charges just end up being lip service. Surely it should mean at the very least the offender has to serve the full term of their longest sentence if they were serving multiple concurrent sentences alongside?

SeaAndStars · 15/09/2025 15:50

Rest in peace poor little Victoria. So many people desperate to have children to love and cherish and that poor little mite died of cold.

SeaAndStars · 15/09/2025 15:51

This reply has been withdrawn

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

PermanentTemporary · 15/09/2025 15:52

Terrifying people. I’m certain he will try to get sperm to her in prison.

musicalfrog · 15/09/2025 15:55

I'm not sure that sentence really reflects the crime tbh.

NoCommentingFromNowOn · 15/09/2025 15:56

BalladOfBarryAndFreda · 15/09/2025 15:49

What's the point of concurrent sentencing? The shorter sentences/charges just end up being lip service. Surely it should mean at the very least the offender has to serve the full term of their longest sentence if they were serving multiple concurrent sentences alongside?

Yes, I never understand this.

HonoriaBulstrode · 15/09/2025 16:01

Did her parents not take in the other children? Or were they not allowed to?

I read somewhere that it wasn't thought to be a good idea because the two of them could then easily find the children if and when they get out.

Agree that it's a good thing she'll probably be past having any more children when she gets out. She'll be 44/45 when she first becomes eligible to be considered for parole - doesn't mean she'll get it then.

Glowingup · 15/09/2025 16:03

She needs to serve two thirds of her sentence so she will be about 47 when released and that scumbag will still be inside then.

NoCommentingFromNowOn · 15/09/2025 16:03

I wonder if the four kids are together, and whether they have any contact with the wider family at all. Very sad all round.

Susannipper · 15/09/2025 16:04

Glowingup · 15/09/2025 16:03

She needs to serve two thirds of her sentence so she will be about 47 when released and that scumbag will still be inside then.

She has already served two of the years

NoCommentingFromNowOn · 15/09/2025 16:05

Take off the 2 1/2 she already served though.

NoCommentingFromNowOn · 15/09/2025 16:05

Oh cross post sorry.

Handsomesoapdish · 15/09/2025 16:05

BalladOfBarryAndFreda · 15/09/2025 15:49

What's the point of concurrent sentencing? The shorter sentences/charges just end up being lip service. Surely it should mean at the very least the offender has to serve the full term of their longest sentence if they were serving multiple concurrent sentences alongside?

I so agree with you. My friend often jokes that if he commits one offence he is going to completely go off the rails and go to town since you will only have to serve one sentence anyway.

Concurrent sentencing is an absolute farce.

Glowingup · 15/09/2025 16:07

NoCommentingFromNowOn · 15/09/2025 16:03

I wonder if the four kids are together, and whether they have any contact with the wider family at all. Very sad all round.

They were put up for adoption so I doubt they are all together and I also doubt they have contact with the wider family.

NoCommentingFromNowOn · 15/09/2025 16:09

Glowingup · 15/09/2025 16:07

They were put up for adoption so I doubt they are all together and I also doubt they have contact with the wider family.

Show quote history

Wow. I hadn’t heard that ☹️

prh47bridge · 15/09/2025 16:12

BalladOfBarryAndFreda · 15/09/2025 15:49

What's the point of concurrent sentencing? The shorter sentences/charges just end up being lip service. Surely it should mean at the very least the offender has to serve the full term of their longest sentence if they were serving multiple concurrent sentences alongside?

When dealing with multiple offences, the judge will try to impose a sentence that reflects all of the offending behaviour and is just and proportionate. Concurrent sentences will generally be used where all the offences arise from the same incident or facts, or there is a series of offences of the same or similar kind, especially when committed against the same person. So that the sentence is appropriate, it is usually the case that the sentence passed for the lead offence will be higher than would have been the case if that was the only offence. On the other hand, when using consecutive sentences, the judge will often have to reduce the sentence for one or more of the offences to prevent the resulting sentence being excessive.

So, in this case, Marten and Gordon probably received longer sentences for gross negligence manslaughter than would have been the case if they had only been charged with that offence.

dramaticshit · 15/09/2025 16:17

Passing each other notes - it just goes to show there is fuck all remorse and it’s all about each other. All their poor children, but especially Victoria

FuzzyWolf · 15/09/2025 16:20

They should never have been allowed to have the opportunity to pass notes to each other. It comes across that they’ve never taken any of this seriously and still believe they did the right thing.

RIP Victoria. Thankfully you won’t have anymore siblings that will be mistreated. I hope the older children are happy with their new home/s.

InNewYorkNoShoes · 15/09/2025 16:33

He could have more children with someone else if he’s out in 14 years.
I am very sad for the children they have and especially the poor baby ❤️

HonoriaBulstrode · 15/09/2025 16:48

He could have more children with someone else if he’s out in 14 years.

It'll be twelve years, with time already served deducted. That's if he serves the full time.

But he's already over fifty. By the time he gets out, I don't suppose many women of childbearing age would see him as a desirable partner.

And he'll be on licence at first. Probation services will be keeping track of him and any relationships he gets into.

Glowingup · 15/09/2025 16:50

HonoriaBulstrode · 15/09/2025 16:48

He could have more children with someone else if he’s out in 14 years.

It'll be twelve years, with time already served deducted. That's if he serves the full time.

But he's already over fifty. By the time he gets out, I don't suppose many women of childbearing age would see him as a desirable partner.

And he'll be on licence at first. Probation services will be keeping track of him and any relationships he gets into.

Nah there will be some desperate girl who will write to him in prison and then want to have kids with him when he gets out. There always is. Men like that know how to target women.

FuzzyWolf · 15/09/2025 16:59

HonoriaBulstrode · 15/09/2025 16:48

He could have more children with someone else if he’s out in 14 years.

It'll be twelve years, with time already served deducted. That's if he serves the full time.

But he's already over fifty. By the time he gets out, I don't suppose many women of childbearing age would see him as a desirable partner.

And he'll be on licence at first. Probation services will be keeping track of him and any relationships he gets into.

I am staggered that anyone has ever thought he was a suitable partner so who knows what the future is for him!

AnAlpacaForChristmasPleaseSanta · 15/09/2025 17:03

Glowingup · 15/09/2025 16:50

Nah there will be some desperate girl who will write to him in prison and then want to have kids with him when he gets out. There always is. Men like that know how to target women.

Show quote history

Unfortunately I agree with you. Peter Sutcliffe, Charles Manson and even Ian Brady all got fanmail from women whilst in prison. I know PS got quite a few marriage proposals sent to him and Manson actually married one of his. Beyond me what goes through some people's heads.

greekyogurtaddict · 15/09/2025 17:34

I will freely admit that I am inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt. I think the sentence is too long and unfair and reminds me of mothers jailed for cot deaths. There is no proof that the baby died of hypothermia, it is an unsound ruling and an appeal now has even stronger grounds. They were not on trial for their previous four children, they were already found guilty of concealing the death of a child, their biggest crime after the potentially accidental death of their child seems to be their distrust and dislike of the state and traditional society, which is not a crime and doesn't deserve a lengthy prison sentence. Also can you imagine having 4 of your children removed? Especially if YOU don't believe that raising them in an alternative way was wrong? That is going to lead an already fragile person to spiral into something far worse and the evidence strongly suggests that she is fragile and paranoid due to PTSD. She was assessed as a suitable mother in Ireland but the state still took her children away when she returned to the UK. She should have stayed there and had a fresh start, far too judgemental and risk averse here. I feel compassion for the child AND for the parents. Without wider family support systems in place I would have had to make the same decisions as the social workers here because it was an unacceptable level of risk, but risk does not automatically equal harm, or that they are monsters. Yes, they were bad for each other, yes they were not fit parents when together, but not worthy of a 14 year sentence. I do wish they had had the common sense to report the death to the authorities immediatly to establish a correct cause of death, the fact they did not is consistant with their general approach to life and the fact they were on the run, not in itself evidence they actively caused the death through hypothermia. I'm not sure I'd be thinking sensibly had my baby died either. As said, maybe I'm too soft, but I would like to believe there are alternative narratives here that they were misguided and stubborn but not necessarily evil baby killers.

Glowingup · 15/09/2025 18:03

greekyogurtaddict · 15/09/2025 17:34

I will freely admit that I am inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt. I think the sentence is too long and unfair and reminds me of mothers jailed for cot deaths. There is no proof that the baby died of hypothermia, it is an unsound ruling and an appeal now has even stronger grounds. They were not on trial for their previous four children, they were already found guilty of concealing the death of a child, their biggest crime after the potentially accidental death of their child seems to be their distrust and dislike of the state and traditional society, which is not a crime and doesn't deserve a lengthy prison sentence. Also can you imagine having 4 of your children removed? Especially if YOU don't believe that raising them in an alternative way was wrong? That is going to lead an already fragile person to spiral into something far worse and the evidence strongly suggests that she is fragile and paranoid due to PTSD. She was assessed as a suitable mother in Ireland but the state still took her children away when she returned to the UK. She should have stayed there and had a fresh start, far too judgemental and risk averse here. I feel compassion for the child AND for the parents. Without wider family support systems in place I would have had to make the same decisions as the social workers here because it was an unacceptable level of risk, but risk does not automatically equal harm, or that they are monsters. Yes, they were bad for each other, yes they were not fit parents when together, but not worthy of a 14 year sentence. I do wish they had had the common sense to report the death to the authorities immediatly to establish a correct cause of death, the fact they did not is consistant with their general approach to life and the fact they were on the run, not in itself evidence they actively caused the death through hypothermia. I'm not sure I'd be thinking sensibly had my baby died either. As said, maybe I'm too soft, but I would like to believe there are alternative narratives here that they were misguided and stubborn but not necessarily evil baby killers.

Wtf??? What did I just read?