Ive never seen a case like Marten and Gordons - it was jaw-dropping

Ive reported on many criminal cases, but nothing like Constance Marten and Mark Gordons. Their trials were extraordinary.

A couple who were twice in the dock over the death of their newborn baby, they appeared to be completely in love and still fiercely united. And yet they had utter contempt for the court process.

They caused chaos across their two trials, which both overran by months. At one point, the Old Baileys most senior judge accused them of trying to "sabotage" and "manipulate" their retrial. It nearly collapsed a number of times.

Their behaviour - from refusing to turn up to court and claiming to be ill, to sacking countless barristers and Gordons trousers even being misplaced one day - left His Honour Judge Mark Lucraft KC exasperated on many occasions.

At one point he said two teenagers, who had been in his court the previous week, were "rather better behaved" than Marten, adding: "And they pleaded guilty to murder."

Over the last 18 months Ive sat through Marten and Gordons two criminal trials.

The first, which started in January 2024, resulted in the pair being found guilty of concealing the birth of their baby, Victoria, of perverting the course of justice and child cruelty.

But in late June, the jury in that trial was dismissed, unable to decide on one of the two, more serious charges about Victorias death.

A second trial began almost nine months later. They have now both been found guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence.

Now their case is over, we can report some of the remarkable moments when jurors were not in court. At times what happened across the trials was jaw-dropping.

Marten and Gordon were highly unusual defendants. They would often talk during proceedings - as if completely unaware they were on trial. They knew their conversations were disruptive, but they didnt seem to care.

One day, while a witness was giving evidence, Marten sent a note to the judge asking: "Could I nip out for a coffee as were falling asleep?"

The judge said it "doesnt look good" if defendants arent interested in the evidence. They were, of course, on trial over the death of their baby.

It was obvious from the moment I first saw Marten and Gordon that they were still very much in love. They presented as a couple in court, rather than as co-defendants.

"Will you stop flirting with me," Marten said loudly to Gordon one day after the judge left court.

On her 38th birthday, they had a lingering embrace in the dock. "Wheres my present," she playfully asked.

They appeared fixated on each other. "Obsession" was how Gordon described his love for Marten to police, saying he would have done anything for her.

Later, while giving evidence in their retrial, as if reading an open love letter to court, he declared "it was love" between him and his "noble" and "beautiful" wife.

"She was one of the best things that ever happened to me in my life."

Marten and Gordon were often excited to see each other when they were brought up from the cells. Her face would light up when he appeared at the dock door. Sometimes she would blow Gordon kisses.

They were affectionate. They hugged and kissed on the cheek. Sometimes they tenderly stroked each others hand. When Marten became tearful Gordon put his arm out to comfort her.

During proceedings, sitting with a dock officer between them, Gordon would often try to catch Martens eye and smile. She would frequently lean towards him, with her chin resting on her hand.

At the end of the day, before being led back to their cells, theyd sometimes say "love you" to each other. It seemed like they looked forward to coming to court, a place they got to spend time together.

But there was a sense of chaos before the couples first trial began in the early weeks of 2024. Marten and Gordons legal representation kept changing - a running theme throughout their protracted case.

Some they sacked. Others withdrew. Sometimes they didnt have lawyers at all. It caused unending disruption.

In trials like this, involving serious charges, a defendant would typically have two barristers representing them. Marten got through an extraordinary number.

From her first appearance at the Old Bailey, in March 2023, to the end of the second trial, more than two years later, she had been represented by 14 barristers.

Why had she got through so many?

"Because she thinks shes entitled and doesnt listen to instructions," a source close to one of her former legal teams told the BBC.

Gordon also changed his legal team and ended up representing himself.

It caused significant delays - the couples first trial overran by about three months, while the second overran by nearly two months.

Their "antics", as the judge put it, got increasingly worse as the second trial went on and on.

They repeatedly didnt turn up, meaning many court days were lost and jurors were hugely inconvenienced.

Often one of them would say they werent well enough to come to court, only to be assessed as being medically fit to do so.

"Constance Marten is not running this trial," Judge Lucraft said firmly one day after she refused again to come to court.

Marten spent days complaining about her tooth pain. Court days were lost because of it. On one of those days she was found to be "medically fit" but "refused" to come.

"She is on trial for extremely serious offences and Ive bent over backwards," the judge said. "Ive given her more latitude than I suspect I ought to in some situations."

"In my view this is a complete sham," he said later referring to Martens absence. Despite Martens complaints of tooth pain, she declined treatment.

There were other highly unusual delays.

Marten refused to attend court one day after she had become "very argumentative and abusive to the staff in prison", according to the note from HMP Bronzefield.

The judge expressed his frustration again and again.

"This trial has had so many delays and quite frankly it is an insult to this court and to the jury", he said one day without jurors in the room.

On that particular day, the judge asked for Marten to join on a remote link from prison to explain why she wasnt at court.

She said she had been "lied on" and had asked to see a nurse but none were available.

"I am happy to come to court," she told the judge, "but yesterday at the Old Bailey I was abused for three hours by a guy in the cells next to me, shouting I am a baby killer."

One day Gordon, who normally wore a shirt and tie, turned up in a blue and yellow prison escape suit - used to spot runaway prisoners. On another occasion it emerged his court trousers had gone missing on his journey between prison and court.

The judge, who said he could not be allowed in court in prison wear, remarked: "It would be a great shame to lose any more time through a lack of trousers."

Marten and Gordon repeatedly ignored the judges instructions not to speak to each other during breaks in their evidence.

Unusually, he started coming into court before they were brought up from the cells to stop it from happening, with a warning that if they didnt, he would put them in different courtrooms.

One day Marten repeatedly exhaled so loudly during the evidence that the whole courtroom heard.

"Huffing and puffing at the back of the court is not the way these proceedings are done," said the unimpressed judge. Other days she yawned repeatedly.

She complained of feeling tired and said she had never experienced anything like travelling to court and back. "There are women locked in a metal cage in a van."

Sometimes Marten and Gordon would abruptly blurt things out from the dock when they took issue with the evidence.

They were rude to some of the dock officers: when one tried to separate them after they tried to hug in the dock, Gordon became angry.

"Dont touch me, man," said an irate Gordon amid the commotion before telling the dock officer to "shut up" when the judge and jury werent in the room.

During the first trial, Gordon refused to return to the dock unless a dock officer was changed and then demanded to speak to the cell manager.

Sometimes we heard loud arguing in the corridor behind the dock door between Marten and Gordon and dock officers.

One of the most explosive moments in the couples retrial happened when Marten was giving evidence. She suddenly blurted out to the jury that her husband had a "violent rape conviction".

We all knew about Gordons previous conviction. But the jury didnt.

To ensure he received a fair trial, an order preventing the media from reporting Gordons previous offences was put in place. It was never mentioned in front of the jury.

It was a jaw-dropping moment, which set off an unforeseen chain of events.

"This is plainly a deliberate attempt by the defendant to sabotage the trial," the judge said after the jury was ushered out quickly.

One of the prosecutors, Joel Smith KC, described it as a "deliberate attempt to take a wrecking ball" to the trial.

Marten claimed Mr Smith had already told the jury about the conviction. He hadnt. She said she had been exhausted and later blamed her "agonising toothache".

"Im extremely tired and I am irate that this word deliberate keeps being expounded in this courtroom," she said.

From then on it was difficult to keep up with the flurry of twists and turns that followed. Gordon initially wanted the jury discharged in his case.

The judge agreed. He said he had "little choice" and that Gordon would be tried next year. But the case against Marten would continue "alone", he decided during legal discussions.

Gordon then quickly changed his mind. "I cant do another year in prison," he pleaded with the judge. "I really beseech the court to allow this trial to continue," he added.

In the end, the case against Gordon continued. But the couples behaviour appeared increasingly impulsive.

The number of barristers in court started to dwindle. Marten sacked her lead barrister but kept her junior. Not long after, Gordons barristers withdrew their services.

He said he had sacked them and then declared that he was representing himself with the help of a solicitor. She also eventually withdrew.

The retrial had entered a whole new dimension.

Unlike at the first trial, when Gordon would often sit looking zoned out with his eyes half shut, now he appeared emboldened.

The problem was he wasnt a trained lawyer. It became hugely complicated. He often went on lengthy rants.

Without the jury in the room he would flip flop between complaining that things were "not fair" to turning the charm on, telling the judge that he was "tolerant", "kind", "patient" and "gracious".

Other days he would shout at the judge as he left the courtroom.

He complained that he didnt have the same access as barristers. He wanted a desk, power to make legal applications and Archbold, a criminal law book running to more than 3,000 pages.

He repeatedly asked for more and more time to get his head around the case. It led to huge delays.

"Do you want me to adjourn for three years while you do a law degree?" the judge said to him one day.

At times Gordon appeared overwhelmed. He even pleaded for a royal intervention, describing the monarch as "compassionate and merciful".

"I ask the King in his mercy and those who work for him to help me," he said.

As the weeks went by, the judge warned Gordon a number of times that he might still remove him from the retrial because of the continued delays.

"Its simply him manipulating the system," the judge said on one occasion.

One of the most gripping and unusual moments of the retrial was when Gordon cross-examined Marten.

Normally a barrister would be expected to be forensic, but there was a tenderness in how he asked questions.

"Who was hands on and gentle with the kids?" he asked. "Both of us… especially you," she replied.

"Was the baby always a priority?"

"Absolutely, thats why we did what we did," Marten responded. "Our number one priority was Victoria. We were doing what we were doing for her."

Marten cried when Gordon asked her about their four other children who had been taken into care. "Alright, babes," he said trying to comfort her.

There was a marked change in her demeanour too.

When questioned by her husband she spoke softly, but when she was cross-examined by the prosecution she bristled and became increasingly strident, before cutting short her time in the witness box.

When it came to the moment of the verdicts, the courtroom filled. There was silence. "Would the defendants please stand," the clerk said. They refused.

Guilty of gross negligence manslaughter for Gordon, the jury foreman told the court. Marten shook her head and crossed her arms.

Guilty of the same for her. She looked intensely at her partner. He leaned his head back against the wall and closed his eyes.

"Its a scam," Marten later shouted from the dock.

"It was an unfair trial," Gordon said loudly.

He told a dock officer: "Im actually happy with the result because I will win the appeal."

He then thanked the court usher. "Its been a pleasure."

Up until the very last moments of their case Marten and Gordon were still disrupting, doing things their way.

A couple who were so fixated on each other, they were unable to grasp what the jury was sure of: that it was their chaotic and dangerous choices that ultimately led to the death of their baby, Victoria.

Additional reporting by Claire Ellison, Levi Jouavel and Daniel Sandford.