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

[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]

13:00JAMES CARTLEDGE

Trial adjourned for lunch

Judge Wall concludes his legal directions.

The trial adjourns for lunch.

It will resume at 2pm.

 

[Littlegreenlady]

Thank you for all your updates @Noseyjosie

I wouldn't want to be a juror on this trial, the things they must have heard

 

[Dotta]

I have a feeling Judge directs Jury to manslaughter

 

[Tortoise]

I have a feeling Judge directs Jury to manslaughter

Why Dotta?

 

[Noseyjosie]

Thank you for all your updates @Noseyjosie

I wouldn't want to be a juror on this trial, the things they must have heard

You're welcome, I don't think I missed any....

I agree The things these jurors have needed to see and hear are horrendous. I hope they're now excused from being called up ever again

 

[Dotta]

Why Dotta?

To take into consideration her mental state.

 

[ChloLo]

Mental state isn’t of either TH or ETs defence though. Yes it needs to be considered but that’s all. This isn’t a diminished responsibility case IMO.

It’s head injuries, trauma to the head that must be considered the intent to do serious harm. IMO

 

[Noseyjosie]

Oops sorry, missed this one....

12:55JAMES CARTLEDGE

'Arthur is not on trial', the judge tells the jury

Judge Wall turns to the issues of Arthur's behaviour. He tells the jury 'Arthur is not on trial' and nothing he said or did would justify anyone being cruel towards him.

He says they should consider his behaviour when determining if he inflicted his own injuries, if the defendants acted in a proper way in reaction to it, and if it explains why the defendants acted cruelly to the extent they think they did.

Judge Wall now briefly covers the defendants' 'character' and the expert evidence in the case.

He moves on to the route to verdict document the jury should follow.

 

[suebaloo]

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.

The above is a contradiction is it not? I can't make it out. Unless we have not been given the full extent of her MH issues.

 

[Dotta]

Mental state isn’t of either TH or ETs defence though. Yes it needs to be considered but that’s all. This isn’t a diminished responsibility case IMO.

It’s head injuries, trauma to the head that must be considered the intent to do serious harm. IMO

I see.
I read it like this : Poor woman lost it, she has issues.

 

[Dotta]

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.

The above is a contradiction is it not? I can't make it out. Unless we have not been given the full extent of her MH issues.

Exactly!!!

 

[ScottishSam]

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?

I think it's because he wasn't in the house when the *alleged* fatal blow(s) were delivered

 

[Dotta]

I hope Mr Hankin will remind Arthur's sufferings in detail so nobody has any doubts of the intentios of these monsters!!!!
Regardless of their mental issues, which, by the way, werent officially presented!

 

[Noseyjosie]

14:19JAMES CARTLEDGE

The prosecution makes its closing speech

The trial resumes.

We are now at the stage for closing speeches to be made.

Prosecutor Jonas Hankin addresses the jury.

 

[JimSteel]

This is such an important speech. This case will echo through the ages.

The destruction and murder of a defenceless child is a black hole of hell.

I can only hope that Arthur’s sufferings will mean that millions of parents who hear about this case will be moved by his trauma and bravery, and that millions of children are treated better as a result, and that we all remember him for that.

 

[Noseyjosie]

14:39JAMES CARTLEDGE

'Nothing either of them can say can justify what happened to Arthur'

Mr Hankin says:

Each defendant directs the blame towards the other. But neither can begin to justify the way he or she ill-treated Arthur. Nothing either of them can say can justify what happened to Arthur.

He was a defenceless child entirely dependent on them for his welfare. It may be suggested by others that the fact Arthur had behaviour difficulties in some way justified the defendants' behaviour. In fact such difficulties were more likely down to the defendants' abusive treatment of him than any other cause.

And regardless, any such difficulties warranted affection and care and support for Arthur, not cruelty.

What happened, for reasons you may think are unfathomable, instead of being provided with the love, care and affection, Arthur became the target for derision, abuse and systematic cruelty designed to cause him significant mental and physical suffering."

 

[Noseyjosie]

14:40JAMES CARTLEDGE

Prosecution says it 'may never be known' why Hughes and Tustin acted as they allegedly did

Mr Hankin says 'it may never be known' how the defendants were able to behave the way they allegedly did.

He tells the jury they will have 'little difficulty rejecting' Hughes' account that he was acting reasonably in a difficult situation.

Mr Hankin argues any notion of Hughes being a concerned parent should be considered in light of the fact he texted Tustin 'kids getting ended when I get home' nine minutes after he had been on the phone to the school on June 15, 2020.

He says Hughes was 'utterly insincere' adding: "His breach of trust towards his child was wholly irreconcilable with the love and care a father should have shown to his son."

Mr Hankin tells the court Tustin's account that she had no insight into her actions at the time and no understanding of their impact on Arthur is 'false'.

He states she was 'bristling with hostility' towards Arthur.

 

[Mellowmelly]

14:39JAMES CARTLEDGE

'Nothing either of them can say can justify what happened to Arthur'

Mr Hankin says:

Each defendant directs the blame towards the other. But neither can begin to justify the way he or she ill-treated Arthur. Nothing either of them can say can justify what happened to Arthur.

He was a defenceless child entirely dependent on them for his welfare. It may be suggested by others that the fact Arthur had behaviour difficulties in some way justified the defendants' behaviour. In fact such difficulties were more likely down to the defendants' abusive treatment of him than any other cause.

And regardless, any such difficulties warranted affection and care and support for Arthur, not cruelty.

What happened, for reasons you may think are unfathomable, instead of being provided with the love, care and affection, Arthur became the target for derision, abuse and systematic cruelty designed to cause him significant mental and physical suffering."

I think they are both going to be found guilty of murder. Although I don't think TH was the instigator, he failed terribly as a parent who should've protected his son.

 

[Noseyjosie]

14:51KEY EVENT

Mr Hankin says Hughes and Tustin 'prioritised their own desires' over Arthur's 'basic needs'

Mr Hankin says the defendants' 'selfishness' was a 'striking feature' in the evidence. He adds:

Each consistently prioritised their own desires, whether for reasons of pride, self-esteem or to maintain their relationship, over and above Arthur's basic needs; food, water, respect, safety.

Despite claims to the contrary both had free will, they made choices to behave as they did. No-one made them do it."


Turning to the allegation of murder, the prosecutor reminds the jury the medical experts concluded it was 'implausible' Arthur could have inflicted his fatal head injuries to himself - as argued by Tustin.

Mr Hankin adds that her account of what happened was 'inconsistent and unrealistic'.

Turning to Hughes he says the evidence shows he 'intentionally encouraged' Tustin to use violence with intent to cause Arthur serious harm.