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

[ChloLo]

They were originally charged with causing or allowing the death of a child. It was then upgraded to murder, I’m not sure when it was changed. I’m trying to track down the charges, all I can find is murder and multiple child cruelty charges.

 

[ChloLo]

To answer the question in my previous post. They were charged with causing or allowing the death of a child in June 2020. The charge was upgraded to murder in December 2020.

Still trying to find details of the cruelty charges.

 

[Dotta]

What a cunning man!
"My boy"...
Playing devoted father in Court.

Your Honour I
- knew nothing,
- heard nothing,
- realised nothing,
- saw nothing,
- meant nothing.

 

[SpursGyal]

Hughes says he loved Arthur 'more than anything'
Mr Richmond asks what Tustin said to Hughes in the period between his return home and the paramedics arriving.

Hughes: "Telling me what had happened. He had banged his head off the floor. Been naughty. That type of conversation."

Mr Richmond asks if Tustin explained why she had not called an ambulance.

Hughes: "She told me she didn't feel it was necessary because he was still breathing at that point. I wanted an ambulance phoned, I asked three times for an ambulance to be phoned."

He adds when he arrived he had to 'assess the situation' and when he did he asked for Tustin to call an ambulance. Hughes says she was 'reluctant'.

Mr Richmond asks how he felt in the hospital.

Hughes: "Concerned for my son. Upset. I think natural reactions any parent would feel."

He confirms he 'probably' said 'he's a little s*** but he's my son'.

Mr Richmond asks if he loved Arthur.

Hughes: "Did I love him? More than anything."

 

[SpursGyal]

'I felt a lot of guilt'
Mr Richmond asks Hughes if he 'failed' Arthur.

Hughes: "It was my job to protect Arthur and I had failed. I felt a lot of guilt."

Mr Richmond asks about Tustin's message to Hughes where she said 'could get arrested for something I haven't done'.

Hughes: "She was concerned for her own welfare. She thought she was going to get arrested for something she hadn't done and more concerned with that."

Asked if he was concerned for Tusitn at that point Hughes says: "Apart from the fact she was carrying my unborn child, not a whole lot. I had Arthur in that critical situation. My full focus was on him."

Mr Richmond moves on to Hughes' police interviews. He states that Hughes said: "I'm not a horrendous dad. I devoted my life to Arthur. Something somewhere has gone wrong. My son has paid the price. I just want the correct justice for him."

Hughes reiterates he still wants the correct justice for his son.

 

[Helleux301]

Just reading the live updates, TH's nans house was empty this whole time, he could have taken Arthur there. Aw god, why why didnt he just do that, what a fool!!!

So was ET supporting him fully, food and all? I would have thought he was getting unemployment benefit, we had that for people in lockdown in Ireland, not sure about the UK. But surely he could have lived in his nans rent free. He needed to man up and protect his child and he took the easy option

Yeah for what? A sadistic cruel, vile woman. What in God's name did that woman have to offer? Shes, and I'm being polite, horrendous personality, psychopathic, cruel, evil, remorseless, plain looking, ,(not that that is relevant) but still it's beyond crazy

He let his son die for what??? Seriously he makes me so mad

 

[Helleux301]

I was a teenage mum, was living with my newborn in a flat on our own from the age of 16. I had no life experience, concept of bills or any responsibilities. That newborn is now a 22 year old man who just graduated from uni, who coaches a football team on the weekends for 8 year olds and who works every hour god sends in between.


My point being, my lack of knowledge or experience of life never once put my child in danger. I had no clue what I was doing, I went from being a high school student to being a responsible parent in the blink of an eye. There was no transition or easing into adult life. I didn’t even know that you had to pay for water bills! I did know however, that this little tiny human was mine to protect and nurture and love and keep safe. I would, and did, do whatever was necessary to ensure my child’s happiness and safety was always the priority. It’s almost primal, that’s the only way I can describe it.

Whatever happened, TH was obviously lacking that primal and instinctive drive to protect Arthur. Whether that be because he only had Arthur full time for a relatively short time, lack of bond, I don’t know.

I feel like both TH and ET have taken the stand and played the victim. The only victim in this whole sorry saga is Arthur. Excuse after excuse after excuse. It’s not good enough. TH could have run for the hills, he could’ve chosen to stay with ET and given Arthur to his own parents who would’ve been more than happy to take on Arthur by what I’ve read. TH could have even had the best of both worlds - allowed Arthur to live with his parents, while having weekend access to be the “fun” caregiver.

Totally agree with this, I had my first child at 17, unplanned, shotgun marriage, back in the day. I was extremely vulnerable, naive etc I can see that a manipulative psychopath could make you feel like your parenting is poor, I really can, but to then be violent and cruel as a response No I can't TH is acting like he's just been a bit snappy or restricted privileges. Not let his son be abused

 

[Tinksx]

To answer the question in my previous post. They were charged with causing or allowing the death of a child in June 2020. The charge was upgraded to murder in December 2020.

Still trying to find details of the cruelty charges.

So what we’re basically left with regarding the biggest charge is - Guilty of murder. Or absolutely nothing. Unless or until the judge allows manslaughter as an alternative verdict….

 

[Dotta]

So what we’re basically left with regarding the biggest charge is - Guilty of murder. Or absolutely nothing. Unless or until the judge allows manslaughter as an alternative verdict….

The same situation was with Derek Ch case I think.
Manslaughter was added later.
But it was USA and maybe my memory is deceiving me.

 

[Carroll520]

So TH only found out about abortion on Thursday and said the reason he lied about ET's involvement before the trial was due to the fact he wanted to protect his unborn child. So does that mean he would have lied to the court about her this week if the baby was still alive?

 

[SpursGyal]

Hughes only knew of Tustin's abortion as she gave evidence
Mr Richmond asks about Hughes' subsequent police interviews after the journey to Magistrates' court in the van with Tustin.

Hughes: "I had lost one child, I was aware of the pregnancy of the second. I didn't want to lose another child and the only way I could protect that child was to try and protect Emma from it all and take the blame for myself."

Mr Richmond: "You are not doing that now are you?"

Hughes: "Over the course of 17 months a lot has been put to me I was not previously aware of regarding Emma and it has made me see Emma in a completely different light.

"At the time I thought I was doing the right thing by my unborn child. I realise now I made it a lot harder for myself."

Mr Richmond asks when he became aware that Tustin had aborted their child.

Hughes: "Last Thursday

 

[SpursGyal]

Hughes again denies murdering Arthur
Mr Richmond turns to the indictment and asks a series of questions.

Hughes denies he was involved in killing Arthur and denies he encouraged Tustin to use violence towards Arthur.

He denies intending any serious harm be caused to his son and denies knowing he had been fed salt.

Hughes denies he deprived Arthur of food out of cruelty. He denies 'intentionally' depriving him of water and repeats he thought Arthur was trying to substitute food for drink.

Hughes accepts Arthur suffered because he made him stand for long periods of time. He agrees that isolating him for the rest of the family 'went beyond reasonable parenting'.

Hughes admits he hit Arthur out of frustration. He denies he caused any bruises to Arthur above his waist.

Mr Richmond asks if there is anything else he wishes to say to the jury.

Hughes says 'no'. Mr Richmond concludes his examination-in-chief.

 

[Tinksx]

Alternative Counts and Verdicts
Manslaughter is an alternative verdict that can be returned on a prosecution for murder. Section 6Criminal Law Act 1967 provides that, on an indictment for murder, a person found not guilty may be found guilty of manslaughter.

Prosecutors must carefully consider the evidence to determine whether sufficient evidence exists for a charge of murder and whether a partial defence may exist or not. In reviewing the evidence, Prosecutors must further determine whether the mens rea for murder can be established. If it cannot, a charge of (unlawful act or gross negligence) manslaughter falls for consideration.

In murder cases, when a verdict of guilty of manslaughter arises as a real possibility, a separate count or counts of manslaughter should be added to the indictment. Notwithstanding Section 6 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, above, it is preferable to include any appropriate alternative counts in the indictment. The reason for this is to avoid reliance on the trial judge or prosecuting counsel in bringing any such alternatives to the jury's attention. See further R v Foster (Mark) [2007] EWCA Crim 2869

[URL="https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-and-manslaughter"]Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter | The Crown Prosecution Service[/URL]

 

[Dotta]

I don't know about you, but for me TH testimony was like a slap (he is good at it) on the face.
I see him as a cunning, vile, cowardly, lying "man" who is laughing at the jury, judge and the family.
That is exactly how I feel.

 

[SpursGyal]

Cross examination: "You treated (Arthur) live a punchbag didn't you?"
Mary Prior, defending Tustin, begins cross-examination.

She says: "You said Emma treated Arthur like a ragdoll. You treated him like a punchbag didn't you?"

Hughes: "No."

Ms Prior asks if he 'attacked' Arthur.

Hughes: "I thought at the time I was disciplining him."

Ms Prior: "No-one was holding a gun to your head when you were behaving badly to Arthur."

Hughes: "No."

Ms Prior: "You can't control your temper can you?"

Hughes: "I let little things build up rather than talk about them, then let it explode."

Ms Prior put it to him he 'exploded' in December 2019 and tried to punch a hole in the door in the annexe.

Hughes says he tried but slipped over.

 

[SpursGyal]

Hughes denies Arthur was frightened of him
Ms Prior states the incident frightened Tustin so much she was shaking. Hughes agrees.

Ms Prior puts it to Hughes that incident constituted domestic abuse.

She then says: "You knew you couldn't hit her, you couldn't hit her children, that left Arthur didn't it? The only person you could take your frustrations out on was Arthur."

Hughes: "I didn't think about taking my frustrations out on someone, that's why it was the door."

Ms Prior: "You had control of this relationship and if you didn't get your own way you lost your temper."

Hughes: "Not at all. No."

Ms Prior: "Arthur was frightened of you."

Hughes: "No. Nope."

 

[SpursGyal]

My sole point as a parent was to protect my boy and I don't think I did that"
Ms Prior asks Hughes if he told the truth during his first police interview.

Hughes says the 'majority' of it was true.

Ms Prior asks about Hughes' comment where he recalled Arthur saying 'I'm in danger with you dad'.

Hughes: "It wasn't me specifically."

Ms Prior asks about Hughes' comment in hospital where he said 'it's all my fault'.

She says: "The reason you said that is because at 1pm that day you went upstairs, held that little boy down and poisoned him with salt didn't you?"

Hughes: "No."

Ms Prior: "If you didn't do that why would you be saying that?"

Hughes: "My sole point as a parent was to protect my boy and I don't think I did that. I took a whole lot of guilt on my shoulders."

 

[SpursGyal]

Hughes talks about relationship with Olivia Labinjo-Halcrow
Ms Prior asks a number of questions about Hughes' relationship to Olivia Labinjo-Halcrow, and her subsequent relationship with Gary Cunningham.

Hughes accepts he did sleep with Olivia after the end of their relationship, contrary to his previous statement.

Ms Prior puts it to him that the 'true picture' is that there was violence and aggression in front of Arthur.

Hughes: "Yes."

Ms Prior asks why he had no concerns about Olivia's parenting.

Hughes: "There was violence involved towards her partner, it doesn't mean she was a terrible mom."

He states he cannot say whether Olivia took drugs.

 

[SpursGyal]

Hughes: "My sole point as a parent was to protect my boy and I don't think I did that. I took a whole lot of guilt on my shoulders."

He DOESNT think he protected his son?

You failed him daily for months. Absolute .

 

[SpursGyal]

Hughes introduced Arthur to Tustin after three dates
Ms Prior puts it that Arthur's homelife with Olivia Labinjo-Halcrow was 'not good' and she asks Hughes why he has described this period of his life as 'happy'.

Hughes: "I thought he was happy with his mom apart from the odd few incidents."

Ms Prior puts it to him he has been 'lying about the happiness of Arthur before he came to live with you'.

Hughes: "No."

Ms Prior asks why he introduced Arthur to a new woman - Emma Tustin - after just three dates, given his background.

Hughes: "She knew the situation regarding Arthur's mom. She was asking questions about it. She thought it was a good step for her to meet him. I was happy for him to meet her. I thought it was a good idea at the time."