Aristocrat Constance Marten and her partner Mark Gordon are set to appeal their convictions for killing their baby in a warped attempted to stop her being taken into care.
The 38-year-old former socialite is expected to mount a case in the Court of Appeal that her trial was unfair and claim Judge Mark Lucraft KC, the Recorder of London, allowed the jury to be prejudiced.
She and Gordon, 51, were both convicted at the Old Bailey on Monday of gross negligence manslaughter over the death of their newborn baby, Victoria.
The couple went on the run in late 2022 after Marten gave birth, believing that Victoria would be taken into care if the authorities found out about her.
Victoria died when just days old, after Marten and Gordon made the fateful decision to camp in the winter on the South Downs, with just a flimsy tent for shelter and little in the way of clothing and food.
The couple were convicted in a first trial in 2024 of perverting the course of justice, preventing the burial of their child, and child cruelty.
Marten brought their second trial to the brink of collapse in April this year, when she told jurors that Gordon is a convicted violent rapist who had spent 22 years in prison in the US.
This fact had been deliberately withheld from the trial, for fear it would prejudice the jury against Gordon and potentially Marten as well.
“Mark has a violent rape conviction and spent 22 years in prison so my fear was that the media would scape goat him, which is what they usually do”, she said in her evidence, when discussing their decision to go on the run.
“I was extremely upset when the baby died. Shocked. I didn’t know what to do. I don't trust the police at all and did not think that they would want the truth so I panicked.”
Judge Lucraft halted the evidence and sent the jury away, before considering if the case could go on in light of Marten’s bombshell.
In his ruling, the judge suggested it may have been a deliberate attempt to “scupper this trial”, as Gordon’s barrister made an application for the jury to be discharged.
News of Gordon’s rape conviction, when at just 14-years-old he entered a neighbour’s home and held her at knifepoint for around four hours, emerged during the manhunt.
But strict reporting restrictions were imposed on the fact of the conviction and the details.
Prosecutors agreed that Gordon should be dropped as a defendant after Marten’s words in front of the jury, and the judge initially agreed.
But both defendants continued in the trial after Gordon himself said he wanted to continue, and promised to “waive” his right to appeal on this point.
“I raised the question of what would happen down the line on an appeal if there was a conviction of the first defendant in these circumstances”, said the judge.
“At this point Mr Gordon said he wished to address the court. When he did so he said he would waive any point on any appeal and was quite satisfied that any direction to the jury would be fair and that he wished the trial to continue.
“Mr Gordon spoke about the delay and the cost to the public of another trial.
“The situation we are now in may not be unique, but it is certainly novel. Having given the matter anxious thought, in the all the circumstances this trial will continue with both defendants.”
When the verdicts of guilty were delivered on the manslaughter charge, Gordon shouted out that he would appeal while Marten denounced the trials as a “scam”.
As she walked out of the dock, Gordon told the court: “I’m not surprised by the verdict. It was faulty, it was unlawful. This is not over, it has just begun.”
The couple have already lost an appeal bid over their child cruelty conviction.
