.png)
Rebel Justice - changing the way you see justice
What is justice? Who does it serve? Why should you care?
When we think about justice, we think about it as an abstract, something that happens to someone else, somewhere else. Bad people. But justice and the law regulate every aspect of our interactions with each other, with organisations, with the government.
We never think about it until it impacts our lives, or that of someone close.
News, views and trues from The View Magazine, a social justice and campaigning platform for the rights of women in the justice system.
Our guests are women with lived experience of the justice system whether as victims or women who have committed crimes; people at the forefront of civic action who put their lives on the line to demand a better world such as maligned climate justice campaigners.
We ask them to share their insight into how we might repair a broken and harmful system, with humanity and dignity.
We also speak with people who are in the heart of of the justice system creating important change, climate activists, judges, barristers, human rights campaigners, mental health advocates, artists and healers.
The View believes that we can rebuild lives with hope, and successfully reintegrate people who have caused harm or been harmed, through the restoring nature of art and creativity, open dialogue and - love.
Rebel Justice - changing the way you see justice
E. 79: The Impact of Trauma in the Courtroom - Constance Marten in Her Own Words
In this powerful episode of Rebel Justice, we explore what happens when the courtroom becomes another site of violence- where trauma is not just ignored, but used against those already suffering.
We focus on the case of Constance Marten, whose high-profile trial for gross negligence manslaughter has captured national headlines. But beneath the surface lies a story of grief, abuse, coercion, and systemic failure. We hear Constance’s own words from prison, describing how the court process re-triggered deep trauma and stripped her of dignity.
We’re joined by researcher Samantha Zottola, who investigates trauma-informed approaches to justice and what a truly humane courtroom could look like.
This episode asks hard but urgent questions: What does justice mean for people whose trauma shapes how they speak, remember, or behave? And how do we build legal systems that respond with care instead of cruelty?
Content warning: sexual abuse, violence and trauma.
Credits
Guest: Samantha Zottola
Voice Actor: Jenni Bowden
Soundtrack: Particles (Revo Main Version) by [Coma-Media]
Producer: Charlotte Janes
Issue 13, featuring Constance Marten's own words, can be found here: https://theviewmag.org.uk/product/the-view-magazine-13/
Download Issue 13 of The View Magazine. Subscribe to The View for just £20/year: 4 digital issues + 1 print edition.
Follow us on Instagram @the_view_magazines, and find us on X, LinkedIn, and Facebook.
For enquires, contact: press@theviewmagazine.org
For more unmissable content from The View sign up here
You're listening to Rebel Justice, the podcast from the View Magazine. When we think about justice, we think about it as an abstract, something that happens to someone else somewhere else. But justice and the law regulate every aspect of our interactions with each other, with organisations and with the government. We never think about it until it impacts our lives or those of someone close. Our guests are women with lived experience of the justice system, whether as victims or women who have committed crimes. People at the forefront of civic action who put their lives on the line to demand a better world. We ask them to share their insight into how we might repair a broken and harmful system with humanity and dignity. We also speak with people who are in the heart of the justice system, creating important change Judges, barristers, human rights campaigners, mental health advocates, artists and healers. What does justice look like when the courtroom becomes a place of re-traumatisation, when someone's past is not just ignored but weaponised? Today's episode centres on a woman whose trial became nationwide news. Her name is Constance Marten. Constance and Mark Gordon are awaiting sentencing after being found guilty of gross negligence manslaughter. But what emerged in court wasn't just a criminal case of gross negligence manslaughter. But what emerged in court wasn't just a criminal case. It was the unravelling of a woman overwhelmed by grief, coercion and systemic failure. We'll hear Constance's words from prison and we'll speak with Samantha Zatola, whose research investigates trauma-informed judicial practices from a judge's perspective.
Host:Constance was born into British aristocracy. She's the daughter of Napier Marten, once a page to the late Queen. Her upbringing was one of privilege but also, as she has now disclosed, of profound suffering. Martin was taken to Synagogue Church of All Nations in Nigeria by her mother, Virginie de Selliers, after leaving school. The founder TB Joshua, built an evangelical empire on claims of divine healing and spiritual power. But testimonies from dozens of survivors paint a radically different picture One of physical torture, sexual violence, coerced abortions, recruitment of vulnerable youth and systemic abuse concealed behind religious authority. Former members allege being whipped with horse whips, cables and chains, denied sleep for prolonged periods and subjected to physical violence, including child abuse, even against minors and Joshua's own daughter. Numerous women allege repeated rape by Joshua. One Namibian woman says she was abused from the age of 17 and forced into at least five unsafe abortions while still a disciple. British survivors, recruited into the compound as teenagers or young adults, reported repeated sexual assaults and coerced medical procedures, including backdoor abortions. Angie, a fellow disciple, shared a dormitory of Constance Martin while the pair were at the church. Angie has said it's no wonder she just ended up distrusting normal institutions, because clearly something broke within her at some point.
Host:I honestly think that she needed help back then and that she needs help now. I feel extremely sad to see what has happened subsequently. The story that I see is very different from what you see on the headlines. The story that I see is a young girl who was taken to an awful place, was broken down, doesn't understand what happened to her and is therefore unable to process what's happening to her now. Years later, constance became estranged from her family. She fell in love with Mark Gordon, a man with a criminal past and history of coercive control. So that was Constance's past, but what about her present? We are now going to hear Constance's words, voiced by an actress from prison, about her recent experience when on trial.
Constance Marten (voice actor):Last year I was told, and so was the court, by Dr Hillard, a forensic psychiatrist, that I may not be able to give evidence because grief can come out at an inopportune time. It can't be controlled, it can be overpowering and overwhelming, and that's what happened to me. It was his voice. I just couldn't bear it anymore. Tom Little and Joel Smith's voices remind me of Dementors from Harry Potter. There's no emotion, no empathy. I was just being grilled as if I was a serial killer, and then he shouts at me in his booming, patronising voice. I had to stop giving evidence and answering Joel Smith's questions because I had gone through it for two days. I was already very teary and I felt physically exhausted. I broke down in tears. I've never wept like that, like a child. I just couldn't breathe. I couldn't stop. I was trying to cry quietly and hold it in, because the court was filled with journalists staring at me. Just one example of where he's tried to undermine the smallest thing was when he was asking where I gave birth to Victoria, miss Martin. He said let's talk about where you gave birth. I told him it was a cottage in Cumbria. It wasn't really a cottage, was it? Well, we'll come back to that. He knows perfectly well that it was a cottage. It's advertised on Airbnb as Woodcutter's Cottage.
Constance Marten (voice actor):By pretending that this was a lie, Joel Smith is implying that everything I say is a lie. They know exactly what they're up to. They're well versed in what they do. They know how to make the truth look like a lie. This is all very re-triggering and traumatic for me. When I was young, I was sexually abused by my father repeatedly. I remember telling my mother and she started screaming at me. She was shouting at me, saying don't you ever let him do that to you again. But I was a tiny child when I was in my 20s. I remember watching my little sister when she was only seven. Suddenly, in that moment, I realised that my mother was incapable of protecting her, just as she'd never been able to protect me. All I could see was my sister's innocence and vulnerability. This is what being cross-examined by Tom Little and Joel Smith feels like being abused over and over again, reliving it over and over again and not being heard, not being believed.
Host:Constance speaks about how the court process re-triggered her past trauma, particularly the pain of not being believed after experiencing sexual abuse. In court, her tears were viewed with suspicion. Her trauma became a point of strategic attack. So when cross-examination is designed to discredit, not understand, it can re-enact the very harm that led someone to the dock in the first place. Trauma shapes how people speak, behave, remember and respond under pressure, and ignoring that reality can lead to grave miscarriages of justice. Many people carry complex trauma into the courtroom only to be met not with care but with confrontation.
Host:Trauma is extremely common among people involved in the legal system. In the US, up to 90% of youth and 75% of adults report at least one traumatic experience in childhood. Trauma affects brain development, often leading to impulsivity, emotional dysregulation and difficulty trusting authority Behaviours courts sometimes misread as defiance or manipulation. The justice system is slowly awakening to this reality. A trauma-informed approach involves four key principles Understanding the impact of trauma, recognizing its signs, responding appropriately and avoiding re-traumatization. But what does that actually look like in a courtroom? That's what Samantha Zattola wanted to find out. In 2021, she helped launch a study that surveyed North Carolina judges following a pilot trauma training program developed by the Bulch Judicial Institute at Duke Law School. 11 judges from urban and rural courts attended. They studied trauma science, heard from survivors and explored how to adapt courtroom procedures accordingly. So what would a trauma-informed courtroom actually look like? That's the question driving this research. Samantha co-authored a landmark study exploring how judges understand and respond to trauma in court. Samantha joins us now to discuss what she learned and how courts can evolve. My name is.
Samantha Zottola:Samantha Zottola. I am a psychologist and I currently work as a senior research associate at Policy Research Associates, which is a company in the United States. I conduct research that is broadly focused on some of the decisions that are made during initial court appearances and on ways to increase access to behavioral health treatment for court involved people.
Host:So in 2022, yourself and four other academics released a paper titled Trauma-Informed Judicial Practice from the Judges' Perspectives. Would you be able to go through what that study involved?
Samantha Zottola:Yeah, absolutely. That project was led by my colleague, Eva McKinsey, so she was involved in a process where she and some of her colleagues created a trauma training for judges in the state of North Carolina. It was a one-day training that judges attended and it had a couple of different components where judges were taught about some of the kind of neuroscience behind trauma, some of the ways that trauma presents, and then there was a lot of discussion about the importance of trauma-informed courtrooms as a way to mitigate some of the harms that can happen for folks who are coming through the court process and have a history of trauma. So there were some judges that were also speaking about just different ways to implement trauma-informed practices. After the training, eva and some of her colleagues interviewed the judges just to talk to them about what did they think about the training? What did they take away from it? How were they implementing some of the practices that they had learned? What were barriers that they were experiencing? How were they implementing some of the practices that they had learned? What were barriers that they were experiencing? Really, just trying to get a sense of judges' opinions and thoughts about the training and trauma-informed courts more broadly.
Samantha Zottola:I was really excited to be involved in this study because I thought it was a great opportunity to hear directly from judges what they thought about trauma-informed practices. I think if we really want these practices to be implemented in courts, we have to get buy-in from judges, because they're really the leaders in courthouses and they can really make or break the success of really any reform efforts, but in particular, trauma-informed practices in the court. So I think it's helpful to understand what judges think about running trauma-informed courtrooms, to better inform trainings on this topic or to inform messaging on this topic. We can really tailor how we describe the value of trauma-informed practices if we have a good understanding of where judges stand and what they think about these practices. And then I think it was also really helpful to hear judges describe the trauma-informed practices that they were engaging in, so that we know what's feasible and we know some of the specifics about how different judges are implementing these practices, so that we can pass that information on to other judges and encourage other judges to adopt and implement these practices.
Host:I 100% agree From the research. What are some common ways that trauma can present itself in courtroom, particularly youth ?
Samantha Zottola:So in this study that we did, we didn't look specifically at how trauma presents in the courtroom. But before I worked as a researcher I worked in a diagnostic clinic in a juvenile court. So I was helping to conduct mental health assessments for adolescents who were going through the court process and I would say that in that capacity probably the most common presentation I saw was just detachment. The adolescents would appear like totally uninterested in the process. They wouldn't engage with questions, they wouldn't engage with testing that they were being asked to do, they couldn't really describe what had just been happening in the courtroom because, you know, it seemed like they weren't really paying attention. It seemed like they weren't invested in what was happening. But really I think what was happening for so many of those adolescents is they were just detaching from another situation that they had no control over that, they had no voice in where they didn't feel safe.
Host:So I think in juvenile court, that's what I saw a lot of was just that detachment. Yeah, I think that's seen kind of across the board. With people in the court that are going through traumatic experiences. That is such a common way that you see they just completely almost shut down. Based on your previous work, then, maybe what kind of procedures are inadvertently re-traumatizing individuals?
Samantha Zottola:Yeah, I think there are a lot of ways that the courtroom can very unintentionally re-traumatize folks as they go through the process. I think you know if individuals have to sit in a courtroom and listen to testimony involving descriptions of harm or violence, that can be re-traumatizing. If they have to be in the courtroom with a person who hurt them or a person who could hurt them, that can be re-traumatizing. If a court actor like a judge, or even a bailiff or an attorney is angry and yelling, if they're interrupting a lot, if they're talking down to someone, all those different types of demeanor from these authority figures can be re-traumatizing. And then I would say, just even sometimes just having to step foot in the courthouse or in the courtroom can be a re-traumatizing. And then I would say, just even sometimes just having to step foot in the courthouse or in the courtroom can be a retraumatizing experience, particularly for folks who have been there before and had very negative experiences or had very upsetting case outcomes. It can be hard to even just go back into the building.
Host:It completely explains the actual literal start to end process is filled with trauma. So then, taking that, going back to the research, what did judges find most useful eye opening about the trauma training?
Samantha Zottola:provided.
Samantha Zottola:One of the things that they talked about was just appreciating the component of the training that provided very practical suggestions for how to be trauma informed and how to implement trauma informed practices.
Samantha Zottola:A lot of the judges that we talked to, at least, were really interested in trying to adopt these practices and I think they were pretty bought in on the idea that we don't want to be retraumatizing people as we go through the court process with them. So but they were, you know, they were saying it can be kind of hard. You know it's one thing to hear this idea of being trauma informed, that it can be something that they agree with in the, in the abstract, but then they don't always know how to translate that into practice. So they kind of appreciated some of the components of the training where another judge was speaking and was giving just really concrete examples of you know, here's how I talk to people, here's how I reorganized my schedule for the day. Here's I make sure I don't put you know a hearing with someone who's being charged with a very violent crime right before a hearing with an adolescent who then has to sit in on that hearing and listen to it and potentially be damaged by it.
Host:So the judges really appreciated just those very kind of concrete suggestions that completely makes sense because, going maybe the other way, you mentioned the buy-in and noticed one of the kind of key 11 points at the end of the study included buy-in maybe not even necessarily from the judges, but the wider court actors and people involved.
Samantha Zottola:Yeah, that was something they talked about too, that they really needed buy-in from the attorneys, because if they were going to sort of run a hearing a little bit differently than usual to try to be trauma-informed, well then the attorneys had to be. They were going to run a hearing a little bit differently than usual to try to be trauma-informed, well then the attorneys had to be bought into that idea as well. So getting buy-in from all of the court actors is something that they mentioned as being important.
Host:Yeah, and then on the other side maybe were there any kind of misconceptions or common doubts among judges about trauma-informed approaches. That kind of stood out to you.
Samantha Zottola:Yeah, I think one kind of misconception is there were a lot of judges that focused on can't make kind of structural changes that might be trauma-informed where they're moving around the courthouse and how things look in the courthouse or how things are set up in the courthouse. But some judges kind of said, well, we don't have the money to do these trauma-informed practices, and then that kind of ended the conversation. But I think a lot of trauma-informed practices don't require money. But I think a lot of trauma-informed practices don't require money. In our article we described there were 40 practices that judges talked about implementing and most of them did not require money. A lot of them are about the ways the judge interacts with the people before them or the way a judge allows people in the courtroom to interact with each other, and also the way judges kind of order their schedule or the pace that they take through hearings. So these are all things that don't require money. So I think there's a misconception that money might be a barrier when it really doesn't have to be that completely makes sense.
Host:I did notice one of the other kind of pushbacks almost kind of even came down to like timing that they have so many, so many people coming in and out constantly that that was a limiting factor.
Samantha Zottola:Yeah, yeah, timing was another thing that judges brought up, saying that they have so many hearings during the day that it's really hard for them to slow things down or take more time with one particular case, which you know. I hear that, I think, especially in kind of large, busy urban areas it's true that judges' schedules are sometimes packed, but I think that I just imagine that there have to be some ways that judges can be kind of creative and can work together, can maybe even switch to virtual hearings, where that's a possibility, as a way of allowing them to move a little slower or have a little more privacy, perhaps for the hearings. So I think it's a tough thing, but I think there are some creative ways to work around it.
Host:So how do judges describe the tension between holding individuals accountable but also recognizing the trauma and their trauma?
Samantha Zottola:histories. Yeah, yeah, that is another kind of misconception, I think that came up this belief that being trauma-informed might mean that judges aren't holding people accountable. Some judges kind of described a concern that if they emphasized treatment or changed the way they spoke to people in court, then that might come at the expense of accountability or judicial authority. And I think that concern speaks to kind of a larger issue about what accountability actually means and what it should look like in the context of the legal system. But I will say that trauma-informed approaches are absolutely not in opposition to accountability and in fact I think they would bring much more genuine accountability because the person's life circumstances have been considered and their voice has been heard throughout the process. So then when it's time for accountability to come in, then a person is more engaged instead of just, you know, kind of passively receiving whatever judgment is handed down.
Host:That kind of I guess almost goes into the point about including lived experience in the training. We're kind of emphasizing the value of hearing from people who have experienced trauma, so that kind of plays hand in hand, I guess, like the kind of almost more human approach.
Samantha Zottola:Yeah, absolutely, and that's something that was not included in the training because it was a short training and that we talked about after the fact, after a lot of judges said they really would have appreciated hearing from people who had been through the court process about kind of what it was like and what really would have helped them, particularly people who had histories of trauma and wanted to help make changes to the court process. So I think that's something that is absolutely needed in additional future trainings.
Host:So how important is the demeanor and communication style of judges and upper court staff in reducing regional mobilization.
Samantha Zottola:I think that's a huge piece of trauma-informed practices. The way that judges and court staff communicate with people has a huge potential to result in re-traumatization. If they are being very short or dismissive, if they're being angry, if they're not hearing someone, if they're being adversarial in how they approach a person, all of those things can result in re-traumatization. And how they approach a person, all of those things can result in re-traumatization. So I think the demeanor and communication styles and interaction really are kind of at the core of being a trauma-informed court. It really does come down to how judges and other court actors interact with people and really trying to kind of meet people where they're at, treat people with respect, give people a chance to be heard. Those are all some of the real kind of principles of a trauma-informed approach.
Host:I guess that kind of. Also in the research of this episode I found sometimes where, kind of by the nature of some court cases, obviously the prosecution are going to be trying to tell their side, which might kind of almost embellish which, I guess, to some people on trial that feels like they're not being heard. They're kind of, if they've come from a background of being ignored or repressed. I guess that's like in itself reformatizing and that's like an issue in terms of how, quite literally, the defense and prosecution balance is.
Samantha Zottola:Yeah, absolutely. To some extent, the structure of the court process is one that can be re-traumatizing, and I think that kind of goes back to why it's so important for all court actors to be bought in on the idea of being trauma-informed, so that the prosecutors are presenting their side but still being mindful of the impact that it could have, and so that the defense attorneys are really stepping up to make sure that their clients' voices are being heard, so that they are kind of carrying out the trauma-informed practices too.
Host:Yeah, it completely makes sense. Just everyone's ability to realize the impact of what is happening and what could be happening to this person. So, going towards, like the after research, what kind of areas of research do you think need more attention to advanced trauma-informed judicial practices?
Samantha Zottola:I think one thing that is really that I'm really starting to see more of in the United States is this position called a court navigator. I know they're popping up in mostly in the United States although I was reading an article about a program in the UK as well and so this is a person who is stationed in the courthouse just there to like broadly help people navigate being in the courthouse but also navigate their legal involvement. So it's someone who can provide directions, walk you to a resource in the courthouse. They can sit with you during a hearing and then kind of explain the process and explain what's coming next. They can help you make appointments for mental health treatment in the community.
Samantha Zottola:It's really a position that is kind of a catch-all way to help people as they're going through the court process, and in some of the courthouses where they're in place here in the US the judges are really bought into this position and the judge will refer people to the navigator. So if the judge notices that someone is maybe having some mental health symptoms that are being displayed, or if the judge just kind of gets the sense that someone needs some extra help getting connected to resources, they can tell the person. Hey, when you leave the courtroom, go out to the lobby, find the desk with the navigator and talk to this person. They can help you.
Samantha Zottola:And I think that's something that is starting to get a little more popular here in the United States and the judges that are working in courts that have these navigators speak really highly of them and really appreciate having this position there, because the judge can't always stop and walk through. You know the details of a case with someone, but if they have a navigator in the courthouse who can do that, then they can know that that person is getting that care and getting that attention. So I think that is an area that I would love to see a lot more growth in and some kind of accompanying research to just really find the ways to make that role as effective and as helpful as possible.
Host:Thank you for highlighting that. I think that sounds so important because whether or not it's your first time in a court setting, it's going to be scary regardless. But if you haven't, you know most people in the public until they're in that position, aside from, maybe, the advice of their lawyer or attorney, they're not going to have the experience. So that is a completely scary and confusing experience. So I think that sounds amazing. So thank you for bringing that up.
Samantha Zottola:Yeah, and it's hard to know who you can ask questions to in the courthouse. You know it's intimidating to figure out who you can turn to when you need help. So having this very friendly face, usually kind of in the lobby or main areas of the courthouse, I think is a role that would really make the process more approachable for people.
Host:Yeah, I 100% agree. It sounds like such a great idea. So, based on the study, what surprised you most about judges' perspectives on trauma reform justice, kind of? I guess, looking back after the kind of interviews, maybe what stuck, what didn't stick.
Samantha Zottola:I think it was really encouraging to see how bought in the judges that we talked to, at least, were on the importance of trauma-informed practices. Even if they mentioned some barriers to them or had some kind of caution about it, most of them still acknowledged that it was something that was important and something that mattered and something that they wanted to bring into their courthouse. I think it was also interesting to hear some judges talk about the fact that being trauma-informed. They felt like it really required kind of a mindset shift for them. That could be hard to make.
Samantha Zottola:Judges kind of described how they are really taught to be adversarial through their law school training.
Samantha Zottola:They're taught to establish their authority in the courtroom. One judge even said that he was trained to use fear to establish his authority, which is really counter to a trauma-informed approach. And most of the judges recognized this and they voiced that they understood it was up to them to change how they interact with people, to speak more gently, to ask more questions, to maybe even come down off the bench for some of the conversations. But they still voiced that it felt like this was a challenging shift to make because it really required them to change their impression of how a judge should behave so, even if they're willing to do that, it's not something that maybe is going to come naturally. So they really talked about wanting more information on how to do this and more focus on this in trainings, really helping judges make this mindset and culture shift and then, final question based on the research, your wealth of expertise, your history, how would you envision trauma-informed courtrooms evolving in the next five to 10 years?
Samantha Zottola:I think I would come back to the idea of the court navigators. I really think that, at least in the United States, that's a practice that really seems to be taking off and it's something that a lot of judges are bought in on. This is something that I researched kind of in another it's another project that I'm working on. We've seen attorneys really bought in on this idea. Other court staff really bought in on navigators. So I think there's a lot of interest in having this role there in the courthouse to just provide help, provide a friendly face, provide direction, and sometimes the court navigators are people with lived experience so they can really provide help from the perspective of someone who's been there and who knows what this feels like. So I think that that is a role that is going to be really valuable in the next five to 10 years. It's something that I think more and more courts are going to start adopting as a way to be trauma informed and kind of have this additional person in the courtroom to help people through the process.
Host:Constance's story is tragic and complicated, but whatever your views on the case, one truth remains when trauma is dismissed or disbelieved, when systems rule detachment over care, the outcome isn't justice. It's silence, shame and often repeated harm. The question we now face is this are our courtrooms equipped to handle truth when it doesn't come in calm, orderly, linear forms? This is Rebel Justice, a podcast by the View magazine. We've explored what happens when people carry invisible wounds into a system that demands clarity, composure and confession, but trauma doesn't follow those rules. It disrupts memory, it fragments speech and it overwhelms. If we fail to understand that, that we don't just fail survivors, we re-traumatize them again and again in the name of justice. If you'd like to support our work and receive four digital editions and one print issue a year, subscribe to The View for just £20. Make sure to follow us on our social media. We're on instagram @the_view_magazines, and you can also find us on Linkedin, X and Tik Tok. For any media inquiries, please email press@ theviewmagazine. org. Please share this story.