UK - Arthur Labinjo Hughes, 6, killed, dad & friend arrested, June 2020

[Dotta]

I wonder - what is it with TH self-harming?
It was said during cross examinations that he did it every day.
He even showed his injuries to Arthur telling him it was HIS falult that "daddy bear" was hurt!

 

[ScottishSam]

I wonder - what is it with TH self-harming?
It was said during cross examinations that he did it every day.
He even showed his injuries to Arthur telling him it was HIS falult that "daddy bear" was hurt!

Yes what's that all about .

 

[ScottishSam]

Just bringing over the judges sentencing remarks in regards to the murder of Daniel Pelka.

They were both found equally responsible and Luczak did try and use the fact that she was a victim of domestic abuse in her defence.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content...ents/r-v-krezole-and-luczak-sentencefinal.pdf

It doesn't matter how scared of him she was, she could have left when he was at work. The fact she stayed speaks volumes.
I had a look over the CPS docs again, I found one about manslaughter and culpability which I think fits more with Hughes. I'll see if I can send the link

 

[Tinksx]

I wonder - what is it with TH self-harming?
It was said during cross examinations that he did it every day.
He even showed his injuries to Arthur telling him it was HIS falult that "daddy bear" was hurt!

He definitely admitted to self harming.
Whether he showed his injuries to Arthur and accused Arthur of being the reason for the self harm is only on the word of ET.

 

[Dotta]

He definitely admitted to self harming.
Whether he showed his injuries to Arthur and accused Arthur of being the reason for the self harm is only on the word of ET.

Aha.
I didnt remember who said it about TH's injuries and Arthur.

Well, the whole atmosphere in this house of hell was terrifying.

Im curious if the kids are now with Shane, or other relatives or maybe Foster care?
I wish them peace and quiet at last.

 

[ScottishSam]

Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter | The Crown Prosecution Service

 

[ScottishSam]

Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter | The Crown Prosecution Service

There's a bit about familial deaths which might apply.

 

[Tinksx]

It doesn't matter how scared of him she was, she could have left when he was at work. The fact she stayed speaks volumes.
I had a look over the CPS docs again, I found one about manslaughter and culpability which I think fits more with Hughes. I'll see if I can send the link

It was also noted that she has a strong support system around her, as well as multiple agencies involved eg health visitor.
I was just trying to see if the defence of DV would hold any baring, in her case it didn’t. Coercive and controlling behaviour wasn’t a crime back then, and I wonder if maybe her sentence would have been different? Just to clarify, I’m glad it wasn’t! She is another parent I cannot get onboard with.

Being a victim to coercive and controlling behaviour has been successfully used as a defence and mitigating factor, Sally Challen being the most publicised case. Does this relationship between ET and TH portray TH as a victim of this, and if so, can it be used to mitigate his sentence? I think it might.

 

[ScottishSam]

A friend of mine studied law, she said all these guidelines are written in such a way that they can be argued by both prosecution and defence counsels. So trying to unpick it depends on the evidence, the circumstances and the skill of the solicitor.

 

[ScottishSam]

It was also noted that she has a strong support system around her, as well as multiple agencies involved eg health visitor.
I was just trying to see if the defence of DV would hold any baring, in her case it didn’t. Coercive and controlling behaviour wasn’t a crime back then, and I wonder if maybe her sentence would have been different? Just to clarify, I’m glad it wasn’t! She is another parent I cannot get onboard with.

Being a victim to coercive and controlling behaviour has been successfully used as a defence and mitigating factor, Sally Challen being the most publicised case. Does this relationship between ET and TH portray TH as a victim of this, and if so, can it be used to mitigate his sentence? I think it might.

I agree with you, I think her controlling behaviour was relentless and eventually he did whatever she wanted for an easy life. He said he was always having to go somewhere to pick someone or something up for her. Which left her ample time to make Arthur cry through whatever method took her fancy at the time.

 

[Dotta]

I agree with you, I think her controlling behaviour was relentless and eventually he did whatever she wanted for an easy life. He said he was always having to go somewhere to pick someone or something up for her. Which left her ample time to make Arthur cry through whatever method took her fancy at the time.

But "wanting an easy life" doesn't sound to me like a mitigating factor.

 

[ScottishSam]

But "wanting an easy life" doesn't sound to me like a mitigating factor.

Hughes family said he wasn't a confident person. 10 people could tell him he'd done a good job, but just 1 bad comment would change his opinion.
I think ET was manipulative, coercive and clearly smarter than he was. I'd imagine a form of gaslighting has occurred. He said she was a confident parent while he thought he was doing OK. If she's constantly criticising his parenting, maybe he believed he was doing a bad job. And she had the answers.
It doesn't excuse his behaviour, but I do believe she wore him down.
Could it be argued that he was a victim of coercive control? I think yes

 

[Tinksx]

I agree with you, I think her controlling behaviour was relentless and eventually he did whatever she wanted for an easy life. He said he was always having to go somewhere to pick someone or something up for her. Which left her ample time to make Arthur cry through whatever method took her fancy at the time.

It’s also this that makes me think he was working cash in hand you know? Not a chance would you be so domineering and commanding and then just be like “yes ok, leave your child here with me even though I cannot stand him and have told you how bad he is”. There had to be something in it for her, something to benefit her. Also, the times TH was leaving the house in the morning correlate more towards working in a trade. No shops are open at them times, and the ones that are, aren’t ones that you can shop at for hours at a time.

 

[ScottishSam]

It’s also this that makes me think he was working cash in hand you know? Not a chance would you be so domineering and commanding and then just be like “yes ok, leave your child here with me even though I cannot stand him and have told you how bad he is”. There had to be something in it for her, something to benefit her. Also, the times TH was leaving the house in the morning correlate more towards working in a trade. No shops are open at them times, and the ones that are, aren’t ones that you can shop at for hours at a time.

It crossed my mind he worked at Screwfix - because that's where he wanted to meet the social worker. At the time I thought it was to hide something, but what if he wanted a chance to speak to the SW without ET being present?

 

[Dotta]

It’s also this that makes me think he was working cash in hand you know? Not a chance would you be so domineering and commanding and then just be like “yes ok, leave your child here with me even though I cannot stand him and have told you how bad he is”. There had to be something in it for her, something to benefit her. Also, the times TH was leaving the house in the morning correlate more towards working in a trade. No shops are open at them times, and the ones that are, aren’t ones that you can shop at for hours at a time.

Illegal working cant be brought into his defence
I'm glad haha
I will accept whatever Jury and Judge decide.

 

[ScottishSam]

I think she enjoyed abusing Arthur, I think she got a kick out of it. All the videos and voice recordings started as soon as TH left the house, he said he didn't open all of them because it was constant.
I still don't understand why he never questioned why the alleged behaviour wasn't recorded, only the aftermath.
He said if he went out, he'd find Arthur where he left him when he returned

 

[Tinksx]

It crossed my mind he worked at Screwfix - because that's where he wanted to meet the social worker. At the time I thought it was to hide something, but what if he wanted a chance to speak to the SW without ET being present?

At one point, he did call the police on ET. It was hard to work out the context of that though - whether it was about the bruising of Arthur or a welfare check as he was concerned she would commit suicide. He did say he didn’t follow it through as he didn’t want to get ET in trouble and Arthur had admitted it was a lie (something along them lines) so I took it to mean that he had reported her for the bruising.


'You were so vile to her you rang the police'
Hughes states he saw the bruises on Arthur's back and thought they were caused by Tustin's son.

He confirms his brother Blake told him about Arthur's disclosure that Tustin had grabbed his cheeks, pushed him into a wall and called him an 'ugly, horrible brat'.

Hughes accepts at one point he believed Tustin had hurt Arthur and that he sent her 'nasty messages' telling her to kill herself.

He says: "She sent them back as well. She also told me the same because of my self-harm. She said 'this time hit the right vein and this time don't miss'."

Ms Prior: "That's a lie, you have never said that before."

Hughes: "It happened."

Ms Prior: "You were so vile to her you rang the police."

Hughes: "Yes."

He states he had 'calmed down' by that point and Arthur had changed his story so he 'didn't want anything to happen to Emma'.

Hughes confirms he tried calling Tustin repeatedly and says: "She told me she had seen an internet story about someone jumping off a car park and I was concerned I couldn't get hold of her to check she was okay."

Murder trial over death of boy, six, resumes after covid alert - updates

 

[ChloLo]

Secondary Liability: charging decisions on principals and accessories | The Crown Prosecution Service
So does this mean Emma is D1 and Tom is D2? Scottish law is different so I'm struggling to understand some aspects of English law in this case. Tom has been charged with murder - could that be downgraded at sentencing phase ie if the jury doesn't find him guilty of murder but find he encouraged the final act?

Sorry I’m late! I’ll try to summarise it using the case. ET (D1) and TH (D2) set out to commit child abuse (crime A), if we take the ET is responsible for the bolus and the injuries that caused Arthurs death (crime B). She is the principle. TH is an accessory, participated, encouraged and aided in the committing of crime B. TH should have had to foresight that his actions may embolden ET to abuse Arthur.

 

[ScottishSam]

Sorry I’m late! I’ll try to summarise it using the case. ET (D1) and TH (D2) set out to commit child abuse (crime A), if we take the ET is responsible for the bolus and the injuries that caused Arthurs death (crime B). She is the principle. TH is an accessory, participated, encouraged and aided in the committing of crime B. TH should have had to foresight that his actions may embolden ET to abuse Arthur.

OK this makes sense, and makes things much clearer for me - thankyou!

 

[Tinksx]

Sorry I’m late! I’ll try to summarise it using the case. ET (D1) and TH (D2) set out to commit child abuse (crime A), if we take the ET is responsible for the bolus and the injuries that caused Arthurs death (crime B). She is the principle. TH is an accessory, participated, encouraged and aided in the committing of crime B. TH should have had to foresight that his actions may embolden ET to abuse Arthur.

Thank you for this, honestly my brain has never misfired so much in my entire life trying to figure this out!

Do you know if TH could use the defence he is currently using eg coerced and controlled victim, to argue that he didn’t have the foresight and his encouragement was more to keep ET placated?