Family Court permits publication of judgments concerning children of Constance Marten and Mark Gordon
Following a successful cross-media application, the Family Court this week published the judgments of the Family Court concerning the children of Constance Marten and Mark Gordon, the couple who were this week convicted of gross negligence manslaughter of their newborn baby while living “off grid” in a tent.
In a joint application by the BBC, Times Media, Telegraph Media and Associated Newspapers, the Court held that there was a strong public interest in support of the publication of the judgments which would allow the public to have a full understanding of the proceedings and the decision-making process in the Family Court, which had led to the four older children being removed from their parents’ care and put up for adoption.
The Court held that, firstly, there was a significant and legitimate public interest in the public understanding the background to the death of their baby daughter, Victoria. The parents’ actions in seeking to live “off-grid” in order to avoid child protection enquiries had generated public debate and the proceedings in the Family Court formed an integral part of the background to those actions. Secondly, the information about the Family Court proceedings which is currently in the public domain as a result of the criminal trial is partial and incomplete. If there is to be public debate about the decision-making process that took place in the Family Court, the court held, it is very much in the public interest that the debate should be fully informed.
In respect of the local authority’s application to anonymise the social workers based on an asserted risk of reprisals and vilification if their names were to be put into the public domain, Her Honour Judge Madeleine Reardon stated that these arguments carry little weight in this case and provide insufficient justification for restricting the media’s right to publish information in respect of which there is, otherwise, a powerful public interest in publication. Given the parents’ lack of engagement with the local authority, the social workers’ direct interactions with the parents were limited and there was no evidence of reprisals or likely reprisals against them. But on the grounds that it was necessary to redact the name of the local authority, and by extension the names of the social workers, through whom the local authority could easily be identified, solely in order to protect the identities of the children and thereby to protect their Article 8 rights, the name of the local authority and their employees would be redacted from the published judgments.
Sarah Palin instructed by the BBC, acted for the BBC, Times Media Group, Telegraph Media Group, and Associated Newspapers.
Media coverage includes:
BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd11x1xgj78o
Telegraph https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/07/14/why-constance-martens-children-were-taken-into-care-gordon/ (paywall)
The Times https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/constance-marten-verdict-trial-conspiracy-culture-tj328vcxj (paywall)
Judgments:
BBC v Marten [2024] EWFC 91; [2024] 4 WLUK 715
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2024/91?query=marten
BBC v London Local Authority [2023] EWFC 310 5 Dec 2023
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2023/310?query=London+local+bbc
