Arthur Labinjo-Hughes: A life cut short by cruelty

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Looks like another link in the chain of cases going back at least as far as Maria Colwell where children slip through the social services net.
 

stowie

Active Member
That was a very difficult read. How anyone can be like this to children is utterly beyond me. It seems to define evil, it wasn't a moment of uncontrolled rage but a systemic conscious decision to torture the poor child.

I am 100% against the death penalty, but if there was any case for it then this one would be it for me. I believe prison, in general, should be geared more towards rehabilitation than outright punishment (not least because we will normally need to release prisoners back into society again at some stage and it is better for everyone that they can become a productive part of it). But in this case, I cannot see why they should ever be released. Although the man was convicted of manslaughter so I expect he will get parole at some stage?
 
Both sentenced to life. Tustin, as the murderer has a tariff of 29 years. That has to be served before parole can even be considered.

Hughes was given life also with a 21 year determinate period of which he will serve 2/3 before release on licence.

The judges remarks also disclose that Arthur was living with Tustin and Hughes following his Mother being detained for a homicide offence. I'd not seen that reported by the media.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/R-v-Tustin-and-Hughes-sentencing-031221-4.pdf
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 28

Guest
Let's hope they get a spell in Gen pop as well!
 

AuroraSaab

Legendary Member
Heartbreaking case. Deservedly long sentences. Just read that Arthur's body is still in the mortuary as the relatives of the natural parents are arguing over his burial.
 

BoldonLad

Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
Location
South Tyneside
Both sentenced to life. Tustin, as the murderer has a tariff of 29 years. That has to be served before parole can even be considered.

Hughes was given life also with a 21 year determinate period of which he will serve 2/3 before release on licence.

The judges remarks also disclose that Arthur was living with Tustin and Hughes following his Mother being detained for a homicide offence. I'd not seen that reported by the media.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/R-v-Tustin-and-Hughes-sentencing-031221-4.pdf

The homicide offense bit was reported on BBC (or, possibly ITN), yesterday or day before.

I think it must have been Wednesday, on reflection.
 
His Mother was convicted of the manslaughter of another partner. Initially the appeal court overturned the conviction but she was convicted again at re-trial.
 

Pale Rider

Veteran
Hughes was given life also with a 21 year determinate period of which he will serve 2/3 before release on licence.

For what it's worth, Hughes didn't get life, he got a determinate sentence of 21 years.

The main difference being he is all but entitled to parole after he's done two thirds of the determinate term.

Thus he is looking at a realistic release date of 14 years from today, less any time he's already spent on remand.
 
21 and 29 years respectively for this is not long enough. I grew up with violence at home and this story is heartbreaking. How is this still happening in 2021? Why are lessons never learnt?
 
Last edited:
21 and 29 years respectively for this is not long enough. I grew up with violence at home and this story is heartbreaking. How is this still happening in 2021? Why are lessons never learnt?

She got life with a tariff of 29 years. That's 29 years before she can even be considered for release on licence. No way of knowing how what is now the Parole Board will function by the 2050s but if she were at the end of her tariff now it'd probably be several more years.

If Hughes' 21 looks too lenient to the powers that be then I'm sure the Attorney General will be on the case
 
Last edited:

mudsticks

Squire
21 and 29 years respectively for this is not long enough.

Agree it probably isn't.

But does length of sentence go any way to preventing such horrors occurring again.??

It's clear that the people doing these terrible crimes are already not rational, they're in the grip of some kind of alternate reality, even if not technically 'mad' or mentally ill.

Anyone behaving like this is obv not right in the head, deluded in some way.

And others need to be protected from them.

But is the thought of length of possible sentence really going to stop them?

Something, or rather someone, needed to be in place to safeguard this poor child.

Ideally family , and community, but tragically there was not enough help from that quarter, why there wasn't we don't really know .

And of course abusers can be very good at covring up their actions.

Social services were already struggling, and then along came the pandemic, which meant victims of horrific abuse like this were further isolated.

There will no doubt be some kind of enquiry to try to grasp what signs were missed.

But social services like all the other caring services are suffering poor funding, and low morale, worsened by the pandemic.

That needs to be recognised, acknowledged, and acted upon.

21 and 29 years respectively for this is not long enough. I grew up with violence at home and this story is heartbreaking. How is this still happening in 2021? Why are lessons never learnt?

Sorry you had to endure that, I know the effects never fully go away, but with help and some luck and persistence, somehow they are survived , and 'assimilated' ( if that's the right word)

Of course it's terrible, it doesn't need saying, but afaik rates of child abuse have fallen over the decades.

In part because of greater awareness.

There was a thread in 'the other place' about the almost 'routine' and even 'unremarkable' abuses experienced in peoples childhoods last century.

Of course in it's not all gone away , but it does get spoken about, and exposed far more nowadays, than it used to.

It's no longer regarded as no one else's business, if someone is being abusive to those in their 'care'. Or to those more vulnerable


Yes this case got missed, or was well hidden, we don't know all the facts

What we do need to remember though is the amount of harm that is prevented by social services, and others.

Of course that doesn't make the headlines in the way horrific cases such as this.
 
OP
OP
Cirrus

Cirrus

Active Member
21 and 29 years respectively for this is not long enough.
Echos my thoughts, Arthur was 6, even if he'd only lived to 60 that's 54 years of his life she and he stole from him, that should be the minimum before consideration of parole (in my opinion), that or:

1638613051900.png
 
Top Bottom