The criminal case attracted national attention following the couple’s disappearance with their infant in early 2023, prompting a widespread search amid growing concerns for the child’s welfare. It later emerged that Marten and Gordon had been living off-grid in a tent during sub-zero temperatures. While the couple were located and arrested, baby Victoria’s body was tragically discovered several days later.
During sentencing, the Recorder of London made extensive reference to prior family court proceedings which provided essential context to the defendants’ conduct before and after Victoria’s birth. Details were provided from the care proceedings which included the fact they had four older children who were all placed in care and made subject to care and placement orders.
The court had raised significant concerns relating to domestic abuse, lack of antenatal preparation, and the couple’s failure to engage with medical professionals during earlier pregnancies. He referred to the parents’ deceptions and said their history with their other four children paints a picture of arrogance and a lack of thought for anyone else.
In the wake of the criminal trial, the family court judgment from the 2022 final hearing, delivered by Her Honour Judge Reardon, was published in July 2025. A joint application by the BBC, Times Media, Telegraph Media Group, and Associated Newspapers was made for permission to publish the judgment.
Two applications were made in relation to the judgments in the care proceedings:
- The first, made by the BBC in November 2023, sought disclosure of earlier judgments which included judgments from the fact finding hearing and final welfare hearing.
- The second, made jointly by the BBC Times Media, Telegraph Media Group, and Associated Newspapers, applied for publication of those judgments.
In respect of the disclosure, the guardian’s position was that he did not oppose the disclosure in principle provided the disclosure was made in such a way that the confidentiality of the children’s identities is not put at risk. HHJ Reardon granted disclosure to the BBC, stating:
“It seems sensible to me that steps should be taken now to establish which information from the judgments is likely to require redaction if the judgments are ultimately published.”
The parents were directed to respond to the application and indicate redactions they sought but neither parent did.
In respect of the publication application, HHJ Reardon carried out a balancing exercise. It was determined that “there is a significant and legitimate public interest in understanding the background to Victoria’s death”. She noted:
“Whether or not the parents are convicted of the offences with which they are charged, their actions in seeking to live ‘off-grid’ in order to avoid child protection enquiries have generated, and are likely to continue to generate, public debate. The proceedings in the Family Court form an integral part of the background to those actions. […] If there is to be public debate about the decision-making process that took place in the Family Court it is very much in the public interest that the debate should be fully informed.”
Beck Fitzgerlad also welcomed the decision to publish the family court judgement in July this year. The national media attention that resulted from the 53-day manhunt and baby Victoria’s death meant that the case was in the public domain from the outset – withholding key information only risked the facts being misrepresented. By publishing the judgement, the family court has shown the transparency that many have been calling for.
Amy Woolfenden reflected on the case, stating that:
“It was important that the public were aware of the background of this case, offering context to the parents’ actions. However, it was essential that the children’s anonymity was and continues to be protected. This was our priority. The right balance was struck between providing the public with important information and keeping sensitive information confidential. I think that the publication of the judgment was a really positive step – the family court has the ability to play a positive role in informing public debate and I hope it continues to do so.”
The judgments to the disclosure and publication applications can be found here:
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
Amy is Director & Head of Advocacy. Amy specialises in children law with a particular interest in care proceedings. She became an accredited member of the Law Society’s Children Panel in 2014.
Recent Comments