Constance Marten is seeking to appeal her conviction for gross negligence manslaughter following the death of her baby daughter, Victoria. The Court of Appeal has confirmed that it received an application on behalf of Marten. In 2023, the body of baby Victoria was discovered in a shopping bag in Brighton. Marten, aged 38, and her partner Mark Gordon, aged 51, were found guilty at the Old Bailey in July after a retrial that the judge described as being manipulated by the defendants.

Previously, Marten's attempt to appeal a conviction for child cruelty from an earlier trial was denied in February 2025. During both trials, Marten and Gordon were also convicted of concealing their child's birth and perverting justice by failing to report her death. The Crown Prosecution Service pursued a retrial for manslaughter after the initial jury could not reach a verdict.

The prosecution indicated that baby Victoria likely died from hypothermia or suffocation while co-sleeping in poor conditions during January 2023. The couple claimed her death was accidental as Marten had fallen asleep while holding her. They had been evading authorities to prevent their child from being taken away since their other four children had already been placed into care.

Marten and Gordon were located after a lengthy search lasting 53 days, which began when police found evidence of a recent birth linked to a burnt-out car near Bolton. Baby Victoria's remains were discovered two days after the couple's arrest on March 1, 2023.

The sentencing for both individuals is scheduled for September 15.

Original article

The article does not provide actionable information that a normal person can use right now or soon. It primarily reports on the legal situation surrounding Constance Marten and her partner Mark Gordon, detailing their convictions and upcoming sentencing. There are no clear steps, plans, safety tips, or instructions for readers to follow.

In terms of educational depth, the article lacks deeper insights into the issues at hand. While it presents facts about the case and its background, it does not explain the broader context of child welfare laws or how such cases are typically handled in the justice system. There is no exploration of underlying causes or systems that could help readers understand more about child protection or legal proceedings.

The topic may hold some personal relevance for individuals concerned about child welfare issues or those interested in criminal justice; however, it does not directly affect most readers' lives in a practical way. It does not provide guidance on how to navigate similar situations or what steps to take if they find themselves involved in a related issue.

Regarding public service function, while the article discusses a serious legal matter involving child neglect and manslaughter, it does not offer any official warnings, safety advice, emergency contacts, or tools that people can use. It merely recounts events without providing new context that would benefit public understanding.

There is no practical advice given in this article; therefore, there are no realistic steps for normal people to take based on its content. The information presented is focused solely on a specific case rather than offering generalizable advice applicable to everyday life.

The long-term impact of this article is minimal as it focuses on an isolated incident without providing insights that could lead to lasting positive effects for readers. There are no suggestions for planning ahead or improving safety practices regarding children.

Emotionally and psychologically, while the subject matter may evoke feelings of concern regarding child safety and justice systems, the article does not empower readers with hope or actionable strategies to address these concerns. Instead of fostering resilience or proactive thinking among readers regarding similar issues in society, it primarily presents distressing news without constructive support.

Finally, there are elements of sensationalism present as the narrative revolves around tragic circumstances involving a child's death and legal consequences which might draw attention but do not serve an educational purpose. The language used may elicit strong emotional reactions but lacks substance that would help guide reader understanding beyond mere shock value.

Overall, this article fails to provide real help through actionable steps or educational depth; instead it recounts events with little opportunity for personal application by readers. To find better information on related topics like child welfare laws or preventive measures against neglectful situations, individuals could consult trusted websites such as government health departments or organizations focused on children's rights and welfare advocacy groups.

The case of Constance Marten and Mark Gordon starkly illustrates the breakdown of fundamental kinship bonds and responsibilities that are essential for the survival of families and communities. The tragic death of their child, Victoria, underlines a profound failure in the protective duties that parents owe to their offspring. This failure not only affects the immediate family but reverberates through the broader community, eroding trust and responsibility among neighbors and kin.

At its core, parenthood is a sacred duty—an obligation to nurture, protect, and provide for children. The circumstances surrounding Victoria's death reveal a neglect of these responsibilities driven by fear and evasion rather than care. By prioritizing their own interests over those of their child, Marten and Gordon have undermined the very foundation upon which families thrive: mutual support, accountability, and protection of the vulnerable. Such actions risk normalizing behaviors that diminish parental responsibility, leading to an environment where children are not prioritized or safeguarded.

Moreover, this case highlights how societal pressures can fracture family cohesion. The couple's attempts to evade authorities suggest a deep-seated distrust in systems meant to protect children—a sentiment that can spread within communities if left unaddressed. When families feel compelled to hide from support systems due to fear of intervention or loss of autonomy over their children’s upbringing, it creates an atmosphere where vulnerability is exacerbated rather than alleviated. This dynamic weakens communal ties as neighbors may become suspicious or disengaged from one another instead of fostering connections built on shared responsibilities for child-rearing.

The implications extend beyond individual cases; they challenge community stewardship over future generations. If such behaviors become normalized—where parents evade accountability or fail in their protective roles—the continuity necessary for community survival is jeopardized. Communities thrive when there is a collective commitment to nurturing young lives; when this commitment falters due to neglect or irresponsibility among caregivers, it threatens not only individual families but also the fabric that binds all members together.

Furthermore, reliance on distant authorities rather than local kinship networks can lead to further erosion of personal responsibility within families. When care for children shifts away from familial structures into impersonal systems—whether through social services or legal mandates—the intimate knowledge required for effective caregiving diminishes. Families may lose touch with their traditional roles as caretakers and defenders against harm.

To restore balance within communities affected by such tragedies requires a recommitment to ancestral principles: recognizing personal accountability in raising children while fostering trust among neighbors through open communication about shared responsibilities. Local solutions could include creating supportive networks where families can seek help without fear—facilitating dialogue around parenting challenges while reinforcing communal bonds.

If unchecked acceptance of neglectful behaviors continues within society at large—where parental duties are sidelined in favor of self-interest—the consequences will be dire: weakened family units unable to provide stability will lead to increased vulnerability among children yet unborn; community trust will erode further as individuals retreat into isolation; stewardship over land will falter as people prioritize personal gain over collective well-being.

In conclusion, safeguarding life depends on unwavering commitments made daily by individuals toward each other—especially towards those most vulnerable like children—and recognizing that true strength lies in nurturing relationships built on mutual respect and responsibility within our clans and communities.

The text uses strong emotional language when it describes the death of baby Victoria. Phrases like "discovered in a shopping bag" create a vivid and shocking image that evokes strong feelings of sadness and horror. This choice of words can lead readers to feel more sympathy for the child while possibly overshadowing the actions of Marten and Gordon. The focus on the tragic circumstances may influence how readers perceive the defendants, potentially eliciting pity rather than accountability.

The phrase "the judge described as being manipulated by the defendants" implies wrongdoing on Marten and Gordon's part without providing specific details about how they manipulated the trial process. This wording suggests that their actions were intentional and deceptive, which could bias readers against them. It frames them as cunning individuals rather than simply people involved in a tragic situation, influencing public perception negatively.

When discussing their attempts to evade authorities, the text states they were trying "to prevent their child from being taken away." This phrasing could evoke sympathy for Marten and Gordon by suggesting they were acting out of love or concern for their child. However, it downplays their responsibility for creating unsafe conditions leading to Victoria's death. The wording can mislead readers into viewing their actions as protective rather than neglectful.

The text mentions that "the couple claimed her death was accidental," which presents their defense without directly addressing its validity or providing evidence against it. By using "claimed," it subtly casts doubt on their assertion while not explicitly stating whether it was true or false. This choice of words can lead readers to question the couple's honesty but does not provide a balanced view of both sides' arguments.

In describing baby Victoria's likely cause of death as "hypothermia or suffocation while co-sleeping in poor conditions," there is an implication that these deaths are linked to negligence on Marten and Gordon’s part without directly stating this conclusion as fact. The use of “likely” introduces uncertainty but also suggests a definitive connection between their living conditions and her tragic fate. This framing may lead readers to assume guilt based on circumstantial evidence rather than proven facts.

The statement about police finding evidence linked to a burnt-out car near Bolton sets up a narrative that portrays Marten and Gordon as fugitives evading justice from early on in the story. It creates an image of them being actively involved in wrongdoing before any legal proceedings occurred, which can bias public perception against them before all facts are presented in court. The order in which this information is presented emphasizes criminality over context or motive, shaping how audiences view their actions throughout the case.

Lastly, saying that “the Crown Prosecution Service pursued a retrial for manslaughter after the initial jury could not reach a verdict” presents an impression that there was substantial evidence warranting further legal action against Marten and Gordon without detailing what led to this decision beyond jury indecision. This choice may suggest stronger culpability than actually exists since retrials can occur for various reasons unrelated to guilt or innocence. It influences reader perception by implying ongoing suspicion despite lack of definitive proof at earlier stages.

The text conveys a range of emotions that are intricately woven into the narrative surrounding Constance Marten and her partner, Mark Gordon. One prominent emotion is sadness, particularly evident in the description of baby Victoria's tragic death. Phrases such as "the body of baby Victoria was discovered in a shopping bag" evoke a deep sense of loss and sorrow. This sadness is strong because it highlights the vulnerability of an innocent child and serves to elicit sympathy from the reader. By focusing on the circumstances of Victoria’s death, the text encourages readers to feel compassion for her plight and outrage at the situation that led to such a tragedy.

Fear also permeates the narrative, especially regarding Marten's actions and motivations. The mention that she was “evading authorities” suggests desperation and anxiety about losing her children, which can provoke fear in readers about what lengths parents might go to protect their perceived rights over their children. This fear is amplified by details like how Marten's other four children had already been placed into care, indicating a pattern of distressing behavior that culminated in tragedy.

Another emotion present is anger, directed towards both Marten and Gordon for their negligence leading to Victoria’s death. The phrase "the judge described as being manipulated by the defendants" implies deceitful behavior during their trials, which can incite frustration among readers who may feel that justice has not been served adequately. This anger serves to reinforce societal norms around parental responsibility and accountability.

The emotional weight carried by these descriptions guides readers’ reactions effectively; they are likely meant to create sympathy for baby Victoria while simultaneously fostering disapproval toward Marten and Gordon’s actions. The combination of sadness for the child’s fate with anger towards her parents creates a complex emotional landscape where readers may feel compelled to reflect on issues related to parental rights versus child welfare.

The writer employs specific language choices designed to evoke these feelings rather than remaining neutral or clinical in tone. Words like “concealing,” “perverting justice,” and “hypothermia or suffocation” carry significant emotional weight; they paint a vivid picture of neglect and wrongdoing while steering clear from detached reporting. Additionally, phrases such as "a lengthy search lasting 53 days" emphasize urgency and despair, enhancing emotional engagement with the story.

By using these tools—emotionally charged vocabulary, vivid imagery, and dramatic contrasts—the text not only informs but also persuades readers toward particular sentiments regarding this case. The overall effect is one that compels reflection on moral responsibilities concerning children while highlighting systemic failures within protective services when families face crises. Thus, through careful crafting of emotions within its narrative framework, this text shapes public perception around this tragic incident effectively.