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

[Tinksx]

I believe Birmingham Childrens Services is in ‘special measures’ or at least it was. I don’t know if Solihull has a separate CS department.
Lots of social work department are staffed with agency staff, which means there is a lack of consistency and continuity.

It speaks volumes that the social worker was given a chance to change her evidence, but didn’t. Instead she doubled down.

They same Childrens Services were involved with Kaylee Jade Priest before she was murdered, also Solihull and also very recently. If this is not an eye opener for there to be a through investigation, I don’t know what will.

 

[Tinksx]

What does it mean "double down"?
English is a foreign language for me

It means, the social worker was given the opportunity to change her statement about the bruising and the social worker stuck to her first statement. As in, she dug her heels in and remained stubborn in her first answer.

As an aside, I just wanted to say that your English written language is immaculate!

 

[Dotta]

It means, the social worker was given the opportunity to change her statement about the bruising and the social worker stuck to her first statement. As in, she dug her heels in and remained stubborn in her first answer.

As an aside, I just wanted to say that your English written language is immaculate!

Thanks!

 

[HollyHunter9]

View attachment 322455
a photo from SM which says it all

She has evil eyes. He is a coward who could not stand up to her. Poor Arthur just wanted love and affection. I hope they throw the book at the pair of them!

 

[ChloLo]

They same Childrens Services were involved with Kaylee Jade Priest before she was murdered, also Solihull and also very recently. If this is not an eye opener for there to be a through investigation, I don’t know what will.

How many SCRs before there are some changes?!

 

[Tinksx]

How many SCRs before there are some changes?!

I don’t think changes will happen. I’ve gotten to the point where I feel SCRs are obsolete. I feel like they’re just carried out to be “seen” to be doing something. I’m sick of hearing “lessons will be learnt” “we’re updating our policies/protocol” . One child, already known to SS, slipping through the net is one child too many. Two children beggars belief!

 

[Dotta]

I don’t think changes will happen. I’ve gotten to the point where I feel SCRs are obsolete. I feel like they’re just carried out to be “seen” to be doing something. I’m sick of hearing “lessons will be learnt” “we’re updating our policies/protocol” . One child, already known to SS, slipping through the net is one child too many. Two children beggars belief!

I might sound cynical, but the most effective way to change this situation is suing civil lawsuits.

When the Institutions have to pay millions of damages, they usually are quick to change and be more effective.

Look at David Fuller and NHS.
The USA is also an example.

 

[Tinksx]

I might sound cynical, but the most effective way to change this situation is suing civil lawsuits.

When the Institutions have to pay millions of damages, they usually are quick to change and be more effective.

Look at David Fuller and NHS.
The USA is also an example.

It doesn’t sound cynical at all, it sounds sensible.

I think the problem stems from the fact that civil cases cost money to launch, and they’re not cheap. Unless it was offered pro bono, it would cost thousands of pounds. Some victims families just do not have the money to see it through.

Like most things regarding challenging institutions and “the powers that be”, the victim is always on the backfoot to begin with, it’s not a fair playing field and it’s designed that way purposely - to not be held accountable.

 

[Dotta]

It doesn’t sound cynical at all, it sounds sensible.

I think the problem stems from the fact that civil cases cost money to launch, and they’re not cheap. Unless it was offered pro bono, it would cost thousands of pounds. Some victims families just do not have the money to see it through.

Like most things regarding challenging institutions and “the powers that be”, the victim is always on the backfoot to begin with, it’s not a fair playing field and it’s designed that way purposely - to not be held accountable.

You are right.
In case of D Fuller and lawsuits against NHS there are nearly 80 families, so they can split costs.

 

[Chessgirl]

I hope they soon learn the kind of loss and hopelessness that Arthur felt. They will never feel the extent of what he felt, but I hope it’s miserable and lonely for them both. I often think of what Arthur must have felt being sent to bed hungry, standing up all day, constantly worrying about his physical safety. Missing his mother and grandparents who at one time gave him tons of love. I have a 3 year old and if the people who love her were taken away, it would crush her.

 

[SpursGyal]

Day 31 of the trial has begun
Good morning.

The trial resumes today for day 31.

Bernard Richmond continues his examination-in-chief of his defendant Thomas Hughes.


Hughes says he was not coping 'very effectively' with Arthur
Mr Richmond: "By mid-May you heard about screaming and crying etc quite often when you were away. When you came through the door was he still at it or had he stopped?"

Hughes: "Stopped. He was stood how he was when I left. I just thought it was a standoff between him and Emma. He wanted his way and Emma told him he wasn't getting his way."

Mr Richmond asks how effectively he thought he was coping with Arthur at the time.

Hughes: "I don't think I was very effective looking back. At the time I thought I was trying to do right."

Mr Richmond asks how he was coping during lockdown.

Hughes: "I was struggling. I wasn't at work, wasn't earning money. I always felt like I had to provide for Arthur and felt at that moment I wasn't able to do that."

He adds his relationship with Tustin was 'strained' but he still thought he loved her


Hughes says Tustin was 'quite temperamental' and 'little things would set her off'
Mr Richmond asks about a text where Hughes questioned why Tustin had referred to him as 'mate' in a previous message.

Hughes: "It was a silly thing. When I referred to her as a girlfriend and not a fiance, she took exception to that. So I turned it back on her and said 'mate?'."

Asked how easy it was to upset Tustin he adds: "She was quite temperamental. Little things would set her off."

Hughes tells the court by this stage he had 'given up' listening to the audio recordings sent by Tustin.

Mr Richmond moves on to May 20 when Shane Hawkins came to the address. Hughes says whenever Mr Hawkins would come to collect or drop off his children, he would take Arthur and sit in the car in a car park somewhere.

He adds that it was difficult to have a proper chat with Arthur on those occasions because Tustin would be texting him saying Arthur was the cause of the problems in their relationship.

"I was constantly texting Emma, it took away from talking to Arthur," he says.

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

 

[SpursGyal]

Hughes says he would hit Arthur on the back of the legs
Mr Richmond asks Hughes about the message where he said he would 'just end him'.

Hughes: "It sounded different to how it's wrote. I meant end that period of naughtiness, his behaviour. It wasn't meant to sound like I would just kill him. If you read it like that, that's how it sounds."

He says he had no intention to kill Arthur or cause him serious harm.

Mr Richmond asks if he was using 'physical punishment' by this stage - May 20. He refers to a text Tustin sent to her mother on that date saying Arthur had had the 'smack of his life'.

Hughes says he does not remember hitting Arthur on that date. He tells the court he thinks it was around May 25 that he started hitting him.

Mr Richmond asks where he would hit Arthur.

Hughes: "Back of the legs, hamstring area."

He says at this stage Tustin was still making the food for Arthur and if he tried to do it himself Tustin would say 'is my food not good enough?'.

 

[SpursGyal]

Hughes admits calling Arthur a c*** was a 'poor choice of words'
Mr Richmond asks about the Taser picture Hughes sent to Tustin suggesting he would buy it. Hughes says:

I was at Sainsbury's and while I was there I was reading the news. One of the news articles was about an incident which happened in Birmingham between an ex-footballer and a policeman.

It come out in that he had used a Taser on the ex-footballer longer than he should have deployed it."

He says he did not order the Taser gun.

Mr Richmond asks about a message where Hughes referred to Arthur as a c***.

Hughes: "It was a poor choice of words again. It shouldn't have been said I accept that."

Mr Richmond asks if the word was 'indicative of his mindset towards Arthur'.

Hughes: "It wasn't an angry state of mind. I think I was more confused where the behaviour was coming from. I couldn't understand it. To a degree yes I was angry. But it was more about where the behaviour was coming from."

He adds he only used the word c*** about Arthur when speaking to Tustin because 'we were both in that situation, it was just me and Emma who knew the extent of the situation'.

 

[SpursGyal]

Hughes denies threatening to throw Arthur out of a window
Hughes denies he ever threatened to throw Arthur out of the window.

He also says he never heard Arthur say he wanted to kill himself. Hughes adds he had never said 'I'm going to kill myself' in front of Arthur.

Asked who Arthur could have heard that from at the time he says: "It would have been Emma."

Mr Richmond asks about the time he went to the neighbour Mary-Anne Smith and told her to ignore Arthur saying 'daddy's going to kill me'.

Hughes: "The walls were paper-thin in Emma's house. If people heard half a conversation they might jump to the wrong conclusion."

He denies he was 'going to kill' Arthur.

 

[SpursGyal]

Guessing a typo in the header…

Hughes says he believed Arthur was being violent to Hughes
Mr Richmond asks what Hughes was doing about the 'worrying' signs from Arthur at that time.

Hughes: "I can't remember exactly when but I was looking for a hotel to take me and Arthur to, but because of the lockdown it proved more difficult.

"I tried phoning in advance to see what restrictions they had in place. I never got through to speak to someone. I was hearing these messages, admittedly I only listened to a few, but hearing those messages.

"Arthur screaming like that, it's not nice. I was uncomfortable in the situation. Arthur was struggling in that situation. I had to do something. I didn't want to go back to my mum and dad's at that point."

Hughes confirms he never told Tustin of his intention because of the incident in April.

Mr Richmond asks about a message Hughes sent to Tustin saying 'he's a disgrace that's not my son'.

Hughes explains he had been sent a video of Arthur scratching himself after Tustin had said Arthur had accused her of scratching him.

He adds after this he started to believe Tustin over Arthur.

Hughes: "I thought he was being violent towards Emma, that's what I had been told by her."

 

[JuicyLucy]

It's hard to tell from transcripts rather than listening yourself in court, but it feels to me as though Hughes has been very well coached by his defence barrister. These read like answers that have been carefully scripted to try and make the utterly indefensible appear to be mere lapses into poor judgement that he regrets with retrospect, coupled with a sustained effort to make Tustin look like the 'real' bad guy in this picture, plus a substantial side order of things he can't quite recall. I hope the jury have their wits about them.

JMO

 

[SpursGyal]

Hughes says he loved Arthur's mother and would have returned to her if she had asked him
Mr Richmond moves on to May 24. He asks Hughes about his text saying 'going to fill him in'.

Hughes: "Again, my way of saying I'm going to tell him off."

He admits he could have been hitting Arthur by this stage. Mr Richmond asks a series of questions about that topic.

Hughes tells the court he only hit Arthur with an open hand, never with a fist, never with another item including a slipper, never more than once at a time and never to the face or head with the exception of one occasion he 'scuffed' Arthur to the back of the head.

Mr Richmond asks if there was abuse when Arthur was with his mother Olivia Labinjo-Halcrow.

Hughes says 'words were said' but it was never physical. He repeats his belief that Olivia suffered postnatal depression and would go out and get drunk for entire 'weekends at a time'.

He says he loved Olivia and admits if she asked him to go back he would have.

 

[SpursGyal]

Hughes says he no longer loves Tustin
Mr Richmond asks if Tustin ever needed to use physical force with him.

Hughes: "No, I would always back down before it got to that stage."

Mr Richmond asks about the time Tustin challenged Hughes about him telling Arthur he would 'always be my son' and that they would be going back to the 'games room' soon.

Hughes says he told Arthur he 'would always love him and he would always be my son' but admits lying to Tustin by denying he said those things to Arthur.

Hughes: "I didn't want the confrontation. I knew where that comment was going. It was heading towards an argument. An argument I wasn't prepared to have."

Mr Richmond moves on to May 26. He says Tustin sent Hughes a message reporting Arthur had said he wanted to be 'daddy's only child'.

Hughes says looking back now it was the opposite of what Arthur usually said because he often spoke of wanting to be an older brother.

He confirms at the time Tustin was pregnant, that he loved her and wanted the relationship to work.

Mr Richmond asks if he loves Tustin now.

Hughes: "Nooo."

 

[SpursGyal]

'I started to see things rather than what was actually going on'
Mr Richmond takes Hughes to another message where he said he would 'fill him in'. He says it will be suggested to him he beat Arthur up.

Hughes denies that is the case and repeats he never hit Arthur more than once at a time.

Mr Richmond reads a text from Tustin where she is complaining about Arthur's behaviour. He asks Hughes about his response which said 'always when my back is turned'.

Hughes: "It was always when I wasn't there. The situation always seemed worse when I wasn't there."

Mr Richmond asks how much extra pressure Hughes was under by the fact Tustin was pregnant.

Hughes: "I didn't want to be cut out of that unborn child's life. I wanted to be a constant which I had been for Arthur. She seemed very stressed because of the previous miscarriages."

Mr Richmond reads a message where Tustin accused Hughes of 'turning his back' on their unborn child to 'stay with the devil child'.

He asks Hughes what his view of Arthur's behaviour was by the end of May.

Hughes: "Because it was a constant theme and I was constantly being told what Arthur had done, I thought I started seeing things that were never there. I started seeing things being put to me. I started to see things rather than what was actually going on."

 

[SpursGyal]

Hughes says Tustin blamed Arthur for two earlier miscarriages
Mr Richmond asks how Tustin was towards Arthur.

Hughes: "More upset, angry. She blamed Arthur for the two previous miscarriages. She said she didn't want that to happen again. She was blaming Arthur for a lot more things Arthur had nothing to do with."

Mr Richmond asks how often Tustin accused him of 'not caring' for their unborn child.

Hughes: "Frequently."

Mr Richmond asks if there was anywhere else he could have gone, apart from a hotel.

Hughes explains that looking back now he could have gone to his mother's, his brother's or stayed in his nan's home which was empty.

But he adds at the time he did not think that was an option because he was not on speaking terms with his family.

Asked how he felt about his unborn child Hughes says: "I was happy. A bit scared, nervous. But natural reactions when you are told you are going to be a parent again. But I was happy."