Jailed aristocrat Constance Marten and her lover Mark Gordon are set to cost taxpayers more than £1million in legal aid bills, figures reveal.
The wealthy heiress, 38, who was jailed for 14 years for killing her baby, has been granted legal aid for her trial and family court battle for her older children - despite having a £2.4million trust fund.
In a case which raises questions about the legal aid system, Marten has boasted behind bars that she will soon be able to access her trust fund, spending cash on whatever she wants.
She will also benefit from another fund which will mature when she turns 40.
Yet taxpayers have had to foot the bill for the couple's Old Bailey trial, retrial, family court proceedings and a forthcoming appeal.
Marten and Gordon, 51, went on the run with their newborn daughter Victoria in 2023 to prevent her from being taken into care, sparking a £1.2million manhunt across the country.
The couple's four older children had already been removed by social services to protect them from harm before they fled with Victoria. They camped in freezing cold weather, causing their baby to die from hypothermia.
Earlier this month, a judge jailed the pair for 14 years as he blasted their arrogance and 'lack of thought for anyone'.
Figures, released under the Freedom of Information Act, show that the couple have already claimed more than £400,000 in legal aid. Lawyers are yet to put in their final court bill, which is expected to exceed £600,000.
Gordon, who has a previous conviction for raping a woman in Florida when he was 14, has already claimed £367,210 in legal aid.
This includes more than £250,500 for lawyers to represent him in the first trial, £55,459 for his civil fight for custody of his children and £56,773 for his retrial. He sacked his barristers halfway through the case.
And the bill is expected to rise as it does not include costs for the legal team hired for his sentencing hearing and forthcoming appeal, when Gordon will be represented by a leading barrister.
The Legal Aid Agency figures show that £34,000 of taxpayers' cash has been spent on Marten's battle for custody of her four other children.
But her legal team have yet to submit their bill for her first trial and retrial which ended in July.
The couple were convicted of manslaughter by gross negligence, child cruelty, perverting the course of justice and concealing the birth of a child.
The case, which lasted two years, is estimated to have cost taxpayers about £2.8million in investigation and legal costs so far.
Born into a life of wealth and privilege, Marten's father was a page to the late Queen and her grandmother was a playmate of Princess Margaret.
She grew up at Crichel House, an 18th-century, Grade I-listed manor house in Dorset.
Following the 2013 sale of the house, which had a price tag of £100million, part of the proceeds was placed in trust for Marten. But it emerged in court that prosecutors are unable to access this money.
Prosecutor Tom Little KC submitted: 'Whilst Ms Marten is the beneficiary of a trust, it is accepted that the court has no power to require the payment of any costs from that trust fund.'
Gordon and Marten had gone on the run with their newborn daughter Victoria in freezing temperatures, with the judge ruling that the tiny baby died as a result of neglect of the 'gravest type'
Gordon, who has a previous conviction for raping a woman in Florida when he was 14, has already claimed £367,210 in legal aid
'However, at the time of her arrest she had £18,145.88 in her own Metrobank account. It is assumed that that sum is still in her account and has not been defrayed.
'If that is right, then the prosecution would invite an order that she pay that sum as a contribution to the costs of the prosecution. Such a sum represents far less than the actual prosecution costs of the two trials.'
Separately, Marten is also being sued by lawyers for failing to pay them for preliminary court hearings before she was granted legal aid.
During the sentencing hearing, Judge Mark Lucraft revealed that Marten had been boasting about her wealth behind bars.
He told her: 'On finances, I note that you told the probation officer that you believe you will have access to the discretionary trust in the future and that the restrictions on access may fall away when you turn 40.
'You also mention another separate trust that you will also have access to.'