16:47JAYNE THOMSON
'By June 15 the cruelty towards Arthur had 'escalated''
Mr Hankin says by June 15 the cruelty towards Arthur had 'escalated'. He states Hughes effectively gave Arthur an 'ultimatum' by declaring his behavior was 'changing that weekend'.
The prosecutor reminds the jury that Hughes told police after his arrest that by that stage Tustin had 'started to bite back' and that he himself had 'turned into a monster' during lockdown.
Mr Hankin argues that Hughes specifically encouraged Tustin to be violent towards Arthur in the two-minute phone call before it is alleged she fatally attacked him on June 16.
He says: "You can be sure Mr Hughes reacted how he always did by threatening and encouraging violence to Arthur. It is telling that the defendants gave different accounts of the content of that call. Mr Hughes says it was about balloons.
"Ms Tustin couldn't remember precisely what it was about but conceded he wasn't happy and he usually threatened violence to Arthur. The prosecution say it is no coincidence that less than three minutes after speaking to Mr Hughes, Emma Tustin fatally assaulted Arthur."
76516486337
16:45JAYNE THOMSON
"Thomas Hughes was complicit in the violence that caused Arthur's death"
Mr Hankin turns to Hughes and states it is the prosecution case he is guilty of murder as a secondary party.
He says: "Thomas Hughes was complicit in the violence that caused Arthur's death. Without his permission, without his assent, without his approval, Emma Tustin would not have dared lay a finger on Arthur let alone assault him so badly.
"Thomas Hughes had the power, the right and indeed the legal duty to intervene to protect Arthur but he deliberately failed to do so. He deliberately refrained from doing so.
"He didn't merely assent, he promoted and encouraged the cruelty that Arthur was subjected to. At an early stage in the relationship with Emma Tustin Thomas Hughes made it clear which side he was on. He chose Emma Tustin over his own child.
"The language he used in text messages, in the presence of others, explicitly encouraged violence towards Arthur. His own aggressive behaviour and use of violence, the example he set, made it clear violence against Arthur was permitted and deliberately encouraged."
15:55KEY EVENT
"Something did happen to this child. Emma Tustin, to use her own words, lost her f****** s***"
Mr Hankin: "It is typical of her that even with Arthur face down on the floor, likely gasping for air, her first thought was for herself. Then what did she do? She set about blaming Arthur, blaming him for causing his own injuries."
He states Tustin proceeded to 'dress the scene' because she 'realised she had really gone too far this time'.
Mr Hankin: "Something did happen to this child. Emma Tustin, to use her own words, lost her f****** s***."
He adds: "When you consider what she did to Arthur and the extent of the injuries that resulted and the severity of force required to cause Arthur's brain, spinal and in particular eye injuries, her intent cannot have been anything other than to cause Arthur really serious harm."
15:47JAYNE THOMSON
Arthur had been subjected to 'incomprehensible cruelty'
Mr Hankin states Hughes' and Tustin's relationship was a 'relationship of equals'.
He tells the court they are 'equally responsible for Arthur's death'. Mr Hankin states in the preceding weeks Arthur had been subjected to 'incomprehensible cruelty' which had left him in a 'miserable physical condition'.
He says: "It provided the defendants with a daily reminder of the lengths which the other was prepared to go to to cause Arthur harm."
Mr Hankin turns to Tustin's explanation of what happened to Arthur on June 16 when he collapsed of fatal injuries.
He states her description 'changed several times' and reminds the jury that one expert considered that to be a 'red flag for non-accidental injury'.
Mr Hankin: "Then we have the common sense analysis. The prosecution contends the reason Emma Tustin's description of what happened to Arthur changed several times during investigation and trial is because it's not true.
"It is not factually plausible either. It is not factually plausible even in the 14 seconds available, according to Emma Tustin's revised timeline, that Arthur climbed to the top of the stairs and propelled himself from the top floor."
76516486337
15:46KEY EVENT
"That level of cruelty is difficult to comprehend, let alone in a father towards his own son."
Mr Hankin: "Both defendants deny being responsible. At least one of them is lying. And the other if he or she didn't jointly participate was certainly complicit in that violence.
"Now they point the blame at one another. At the time when social services visited they were deceiving social services into believing Arthur was safe and well in their care. It is an important example of the defendants acting with a common purpose. This deceit of the authorities and family is a recurrent theme in the evidence."
He adds: "Thomas Hughes was not manipulated into a course of conduct. On the contrary, there was evidence of gratuitous and spiteful behaviour towards Arthur by him. He was malevolent. He relished causing Arthur distress. Pretending to drive Arthur to nanny's house. It is difficult to put into words how appalling that was. He tricked Arthur and offered him hope simply to destroy it.
"That level of cruelty is difficult to comprehend, let alone in a father towards his own son."
15:45JAYNE THOMSON
'strong evidence Arthur was fed food and possibly even given water contaminated with salt'
Mr Hankin states the defendants employed a 'policy of depriving him access to food' in order to 'control him and increase his suffering'.
He says both Hughes and Tustin 'had to police this for it to be effective'.
The prosecutor moves on to salt. He states there is 'strong evidence Arthur was fed food and possibly even given water contaminated with salt'.
Mr Hankin tells the court Arthur was 'not on hunger strike' but was asking for food only to 'reject it only after he tasted it'.
He states Arthur's access to food was 'strictly controlled' and offers by others to feed him were 'refused' by Hughes and Tustin.
Mr Hankin also says that Arthur was given different food to the other children. He says: "Emma Tustin didn't take him upstairs to pluck her eyebrows. Salt was in the shower room. She was angry. The explanation she's given Arthur was hurling himself into furniture is demonstrably false."
Mr Hankin adds: "Emma Tustin is cruel enough to force him to drink a salt slurry. She had the will to control him completely and she was indifferent to his suffering. She remains indifferent to his suffering. She is entirely remorseless."
15:11KEY EVENT
Arthur suffered 'nearly a bruise for every day of lockdown' - and potentially more, says prosecution
Mr Hankin says it is 'almost impossible to imagine the pain and suffering' Arthur would have felt at having to stand facing a wall in the hallway all day, every day.
He adds it was the 'consistent threat of retribution that ensured his compliance'.
Mr Hankin now moves on to the 130 or so bruises found on Arthur's body. He says: "Most of them will have been abusive. If even half of them were from assaults, that is nearly a bruise for every day of lockdown."
The prosecutor points out that Arthur likely suffered many more bruises in the past which had faded by June 16.
He says: "Violence was a way of life for him in lockdown. Neither Emma Tustin's limited pleas or Thomas Hughes's partial admissions begin to reflect the evidence that proves Arthur was the victim of daily beatings."
76516486337
15:07KEY EVENT
'Each gave their assent to persecute Arthur into a state of physical and mental exhaustion'
Mr Hankin says the defendants carried out a 'systematic course of conduct designed to terrorise, degrade, neglect and harm Arthur physically and psychologically'.
He adds: "Together they denigrated and debased him, they dehumanised him."
Mr Hankin reminds the jury of the text Hughes sent to Tustin in early May: "Put him outside or wherever, give him away, put him out with the rubbish."
He says: "Their abuse towards him was constant. Their purpose was to devalue him, that's how they did what they did to him."
The prosecutor states it is 'contemptible' that calling Arthur a c*** was just 'plain speaking'. He adds: "Swearing demonstrates neither defendant had any respect for Arthur at all. Each gave their assent to persecute Arthur into a state of physical and mental exhaustion."
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.
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.
138208710193
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."
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.
13:00JAMES CARTLEDGE
Trial adjourned for lunch
Judge Wall concludes his legal directions.
The trial adjourns for lunch.
It will resume at 2pm.
138212091369
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.
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.
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.
76516486337
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.
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'.
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.
76516486337
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.
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'."
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.
76516486337
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."
11:32KEY EVENT
'She just said that Tom, the little boy's dad, it was him'
Ms Pritchard confirms at one stage Tustin was her cellmate. She says initially they got on fine but she did not know what she had been charged with.
Ms Pritchard confirms she was not aware Arthur had died and says Tustin did not really speak about him, only her own children.
She tells the court she found out about injuries to Arthur from paperwork Tustin left in their cell. Ms Pritchard says Tustin never told her any of the details about the case herself.
She adds: "She just said that Tom, the little boy's dad, it was him. That's why they were going to court. Why she was in custody."
Ms Prtichard: "She came back from court, a few things were said, then she said 'he didn't even look at me'. She was saying it was Tom, the father."
Mr Richmond asks what Tustin claimed Hughes had done to Arthur.
Ms Pritchard: "Kept saying it was him. First of all she was saying it was just the little boy, her son and his son had a fight. Because Arthur had got the better of her son, she was angry about that."
11:02JAMES CARTLEDGE
The court is told of Ms Pritchard's previous convictions
Ms Pritchard confirms in November 2020 she was in custody at HMP Eastwood Park, in Gloucestershire, having been recalled to prison.
She tells the court she was recalled because while staying in a hotel in Worcester she 'had too much to drink', lost her keys, kicked a window through and cut an artery in her leg.
Mr Richmond proceeds to read out her previous convictions which include theft, failure to surrender, dangerous driving and ill-treatment/neglect/abandonment of a child.
Ms Pritchard explains her drug-taking at the time was 'taking over everything'.
Mr Richmond continues with her convictions telling the court they include breaching a supervision order, driving whilst disqualified, failing to provide a specimen for analysis, assault, grievous bodily harm, criminal damage, possession of a knife, assaulting a police constable, drink-driving, battery and possession of drugs.
Ms Pritchard also confirms she was involved in Cuckooing - where drug dealers take over the home of a vulnerable person to use it as a base for supplying drugs.
She says most of her offending has been fuelled by drink and drugs.
138212091369
10:41JAMES CARTLEDGE
Day 35 of the trial has begun
Good morning.
The trial resumes on day 35.
Bernard Richmond, defending Hughes, calls Elaine Pritchard to the stand.
17:14MATT LLOYD
Wrap-up
It was only a short day of evidence today, but here is a wrap up of what the jury heard.
We will continue with updates from court on Monday when this case resumes.
Thanks for joining us today.
16:15KEY EVENT
Tustin 'a cold, calculating person'
In re-examination Mr Richmond asks Mr Hughes if he found anything attractive about Tustin.
He says 'nothing' and describes her as a 'cold, calculating person'. Mr Hughes denies he fancied Tustin and says: "She was domineering. If she didn't get what she wanted she would make things difficult for everyone else."
Asked to repeat his view of Tustin he adds: "A cold, manipulating, calculating person who made every attempt to stay away from the family and draw my brother from the family as well."
Mr Richmond concludes his questions and Mr Hughes is released. That concludes today's evidence.
Judge Wall tells the jury there will be one more witness in the case on Monday, after which he will provide directions on the law. That will be followed by speeches from the legal counsel before he then sums up the evidence.
Judge Wall states it is estimated the jury will be going out to consider their verdicts some time on Wednesday.
Join us here again on Monday when we will continue our coverage.
