UK - Arthur Labinjo Hughes, 6, killed, dad & friend arrested, June 2020 #2

[Noseyjosie]

11:39JAMES CARTLEDGE

Inmate 'threw Tustin out of her cell' after she read Tustin's case papers

Ms Pritchard confirms she looked at Tustin's case paperwork without her permission. She says:

She tried to take them from me. She was in the cell with me. I just saw a comment from the paramedic and that there were 137 bruises on his body and that she showed no emotion.

I ended up throwing her out of my cell. I wasn't very happy. I asked her why wouldn't she know about all those injuries. I asked whether she had bathed him or showered him. She said 'I didn't do that, I just gave him a towel and he went in on his own'. I was quite angry that somebody had 137 bruises on their body.

She sat on her bed or chair with her knees up. I got angry. I started throwing her stuff into the corner of the room. I pressed the bell for the staff to come and get her out. I feared I would end up staying in prison. She just showed no emotion, nothing at all.

When we were arguing, she says 'you had your kids taken off you'. I said 'yeah I did, you're not going to get your kids back, you have murdered a little boy'. She wasn't interested. The only thing she spoke about was her own two children. She never spoke about Arthur."

 

[zaksmum]

She tells the court what Tustin allegedly said about Arthur being in the hallway and states: "Emma's children had gone out with Arthur's dad and Arthur was there on his own with her and went to go out of the house and she said she stopped him from going after his dad because he had taken her two children and left him at home because he had been naughty.

"She said she had stopped him and he was a little f*****."


wow! That must have been hard for Tom to hear. Little boy just wanted to go after his dad, who left his own flesh and blood to take out hers and as a consequence he died because of her. The guilt will eat him alive.

 

[ChloLo]

I don’t think her plea has been accepted though. If you look at the judges comment, the prosecution does not accept that was the full extent of the allegation.

 

[Noseyjosie]

11:51JAMES CARTLEDGE

'She just wasn't bothered'

Ms Pritchard recalls another conversation she had with Tustin and says: "She said to me he used to go into the hallway and bang his head off the floor. I said 'what did you do?', she said she filmed him on her phone or took pictures.

"I said 'why wouldn't you go up to him and say what are you doing? You're going to hurt yourself' like a normal person would. She just wasn't bothered."

She tells the court what Tustin allegedly said about Arthur being in the hallway and states: "Emma's children had gone out with Arthur's dad and Arthur was there on his own with her and went to go out of the house and she said she stopped him from going after his dad because he had taken her two children and left him at home because he had been naughty.

"She said she had stopped him and he was a little f*****."

Mr Richmond concludes his questions.

 

[Noseyjosie]

11:52JAMES CARTLEDGE
Ms Pritchard says Tustin 'blamed everything' on Hughes
In cross-examination Mary Prior, for Tustin, puts it to Ms Pritchard that she helped Tustin at first.

Ms Pritchard: "She had never been in prison. I was making sure she was okay, making sure she was alright."

She denies she went through the case papers together with Tustin. Ms Pritchard accepts she advised Tustin to change her solicitor because she had had a 'problem' with the same lawyer in the past.

Ms Prior says Tustin told her Hughes had accepted he had done everything to Arthur.

Ms Pritchard: "She did but I didn't believe her. She blamed everything on Arthur's dad. Arthur's dad had mental health, Arthur's dad was going to plead guilty but she wasn't.

"When she came back from the video link the only thing she said was 'he didn't even look at me'."

 

[Noseyjosie]

11:57JAMES CARTLEDGE

Ms Pritchard denies stealing from Tustin

Ms Prior puts it to Ms Pritchard that her fallout with Tustin was 'nothing to do with the case papers' and it was actually because she was stealing some of Tustin's things.

Ms Pritchard: "No I wasn't taking her things. That didn't happen at all. Not at all."

She confirms she was 'upset' at what she saw on the case papers adding: "It disgusted me a mother could do that to a child."

Ms Prior states Tustin 'curled up in a ball' when they had an argument in the cell and that Ms Pritchard was 'in her face shouting'.

Ms Pritchard: "I wasn't in her face. I just wanted her to get out of the cell before I did something I would have regretted."

She accepts Tustin could not get out, adding that is why she pressed the bell for the guards to come.

Ms Prior concludes her questions. There is no cross-examination from the prosecution or re-examination from Mr Richmond who states he has concluded the case for Hughes.

Ms Pritchard is released from the witness box.

 

[Noseyjosie]

12:17KEY EVENT

Tustin admits a child cruelty charge

Tustin formally changes her plea from not guilty to guilty on count three, which relates to child cruelty by wilfully assaulting Arthur.

Ms Prior says that she admits the offence on the basis of the three assaults captured on CCTV between June 12 and June 16.

Judge Wall says the prosecution does not accept that was the full extent of the allegation.

He now proceeds to give the jury legal directions.

 

[Noseyjosie]

Sorry that got a bit messy think I got most of it...

 

[ScottishSam]

I don’t think her plea has been accepted though. If you look at the judges comment, the prosecution does not accept that was the full extent of the allegation.

Yes the prosecution said it was interesting she only admitted to the offences caught on cctv. She was forced to admit to them IMO

 

[ChloLo]

Yes the prosecution said it was interesting she only admitted to the offences caught on cctv. She was forced to admit to them IMO

I think the reason they aren’t accepting her plea in relation to that charge is because the prosecution are saying there were more assaults than just those caught on cctv. I agree she’s only admitted it because she was caught red handed.

 

[rhino]

It’s interesting that Arthur wasn’t at school throughout lockdown. If he had a social worker he would have been eligible to go to school throughout.

Arthur having a parent in prison would have been enough to have him highlighted as vulnerable IME.

And also IME, the most vulnerable children were not the ones attending our school hubs, particularly in 1st lockdown. We were offering ‘free childcare’ 8-6, 7 days a week including holidays, all meals + snacks etc, yet still the only updates we had for some of our children came from the police attending incidents at their addresses. We had no power to compel families to bring their children.

Arthur was not the only child to suffer through lockdown

 

[Noseyjosie]

12:33JAMES CARTLEDGE

Jury told to ignore 'emotional' responses to the case

Judge Wall tells the jury they must consider who has told them the truth, who has lied and who has made mistakes while giving evidence.

Turning to the moment of Arthur's fatal collapse he summarises what the prosecution alleges Tustin did to him.

He states the prosecution's case is that Hughes encouraged Tustin to carry out the fatal attack based on his previous threatening text messages, his apparent encouragement for Tustin to cause harm in text messages, the phone call he had with Tustin before Arthur's collapse and the fact he had assaulted Arthur himself in the past.

Judge Wall tells the jury to ignore their 'emotional' responses to the case, including any sympathy they may have for Arthur.

As an example, he also directs them not to hold it against Tustin that she had an abortion in custody. Judge Wall says their verdicts 'must be as a result of their logical and dispassionate review of the relevant evidence'.

 

[Noseyjosie]

12:34JAMES CARTLEDGE

The judge explains the difference between murder and maslaughter

Judge Wall explains the difference between murder and manslaughter.

He says Tustin would be guilty of murder if the jury is 'sure she deliberately used violence on Arthur causing his death and did so intending he should die or be really seriously injured'.

He says she would be guilty of the alternative charge of manslaughter if she 'deliberately used violence on Arthur causing his death and it was obvious to any reasonable person the violence would cause some slight injury but there was no intent he should die or be really seriously injured'.

Judge Wall confirms there does not have to be pre-meditation adding a spur of the moment act or one which was 'regretted immediately' would be sufficient.

He says there is no mental health defence in this case but says Tustin's mental health issues should be taken into consideration in assessing what she did.

Judge Wall tells the jury they cannot convict Hughes of a more serious offence on count one as Tustin.

 

[Noseyjosie]

12:38JAMES CARTLEDGE

The judge discusses the cruelty offences

Judge Wall moves on to the cruelty offences. He reminds the jury Tustin has now pleaded guilty to counts two and three.

He explains the difference between lawful and unlawful chastisement of a child stating any 'correction' of a child cannot be lawful if it causes physical injury.

Judge Wall moves on from the charges.

He now discusses the nature of 'hearsay' evidence

 

[ChloLo]

Can anyone make heads or tails of this:
“Judge Wall tells the jury they cannot convict Hughes of a more serious offence on count one as Tustin.”
Is this because he’s charged under secondary liability?

 

[Dotta]

12:33JAMES CARTLEDGE

Jury told to ignore 'emotional' responses to the case

Judge Wall tells the jury they must consider who has told them the truth, who has lied and who has made mistakes while giving evidence.

Turning to the moment of Arthur's fatal collapse he summarises what the prosecution alleges Tustin did to him.

He states the prosecution's case is that Hughes encouraged Tustin to carry out the fatal attack based on his previous threatening text messages, his apparent encouragement for Tustin to cause harm in text messages, the phone call he had with Tustin before Arthur's collapse and the fact he had assaulted Arthur himself in the past.

Judge Wall tells the jury to ignore their 'emotional' responses to the case, including any sympathy they may have for Arthur.

As an example, he also directs them not to hold it against Tustin that she had an abortion in custody. Judge Wall says their verdicts 'must be as a result of their logical and dispassionate review of the relevant evidence'.

Why is the Judge advising the Jury now?
I thought it would be after the closing speeches from Prosecution and Defence.

 

[Noseyjosie]

12:47JAMES CARTLEDGE

The judge addresses the defendants seeking to blame each other

Judge Wall now addresses the fact the defendants have blamed each other.

He advises the jury to be aware of the defendants possibly saying something about the co-accused just to 'improve his or her own position'.

He now moves on to 'lies'. Judge Wall states that Tustin has not admitted to telling any lies. He says it will be up to the jury to decide if they believe her and how that affects her credibility.

Judge Wall states Hughes has admitted to telling lies, such as the lies he told the school. He tells the jury people lie for a number of reasons but that he should not be convicted on the sole basis that he has lied.

Judge Wall says the prosecution case is that Hughes told the truth in his police interviews but lied during his evidence in the witness box.

 

[Tortoise]

Can anyone make heads or tails of this:
“Judge Wall tells the jury they cannot convict Hughes of a more serious offence on count one as Tustin.”
Is this because he’s charged under secondary liability?

Yes.

So if they find her guilty of manslaughter they can't find him guilty of murder, because he's charged with encouraging the offence she committed.

 

[Tortoise]

Why is the Judge advising the Jury now?
I thought it would be after the closing speeches from Prosecution and Defence.

Some judges do it this way, giving short directions first, then the closing speeches from prosecution and defence, then judge sums up all the evidence.

 

[Dotta]

Some judges do it this way, giving short directions first, then the closing speeches from prosecution and defence, then judge sums up all the evidence.

Thanks.
It seems so chaotic today.