Arthur's case shocked and distressed me. Arthur Labinjo-Hughes, 6 years old, was killed on 16th June 2020. The jury found his step-mother Emma Tustin guilty of his murder. Tustin was the partner of Arthur's father, Thomas Hughes who was found guilty of Arthur's manslaughter.
Be advised, the details of Arthur's abuse are particularly upsetting.
Background
Arthur was poisoned with salt, deprived of food and water and subjected to severe beatings. Tustin was additionally found guilty of a cruelty charge where she laced his food with salt. The jury was told that the incident that caused his death involved Arthur being repeatedly shaken in a violent manner and his head was banged against a hard surface by Tustin. After examination, Arthur's body was found to have 130 separate injuries due to the aforementioned beatings, which included a brain injury so severe it resulted in his death. An image of his body taken by Tustin was sent to his father. His father was shown to have encouraged the abuse via text messages to Tustin, one message in a previous incident of abuse said "end him".
Hundreds of hours of Arthur's abuse was recorded via voice message and sent from Tustin to Hughes when Hughes was out. A particularly distressing piece of evidence that has stayed with me for days since reading it is where Arthur is heard crying out "I want my Uncle Blake. Please help me, help me Uncle Blake, they're not feeding me, I need some food and a drink." It still affects me now. I am at a loss to think how they could have been so monstrously callous to a vulnerable child who pleaded for help.
When sentencing, the judge said the case was "one of the most distressing and disturbing" he had ever dealt with. Both Tustin and Hughes pleaded not guilty, and both were to have said they showed no remorse, although Hughes issued a statement of apology as his sentence was handed down.
The sentences
Since Tustin was convicted of murder, she was handed a mandatory life sentence, with a minimum term of 29 years. As of 2021, she is 32. She will be 61 before she is eligible to apply for parole.
Hughes was convicted of manslaughter, where there is not a mandatory life sentence. He was handed a sentence of 21 years. Subject to good behaviour, it would be typical to serve half of the sentence in prison and half on remand. Hughes could serve just over 10 years in prison before before released on remand. He is currently 29 and could be approximately 40 when he is released from jail. He will be 50 when he has completed serving his sentence.
A link to the sentencing guidelines for manslaughter can be found here: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Manslaughter-definitive-guideline-Web.pdf
Rationale amidst rage's red mist
First, examining Tustin's sentence, she has received a mandatory life sentence as is mandated by law. As her hand inflicted the blow that caused Arthur's death, it seems right her conviction should be for murder and her sentence should reflect that.
The minimum term of 29 years does not mean she will automatically be released when this time is reached. The parole board will review her case, investigate if she is a risk to the public and make a determination based on their assessment. It is almost certain that if she is ever released, she will be subject to a swathe of conditions that will either completely exclude contact with children, or heavily restrict it on a very defined basis. It would be inconceivable that, at the very least, a supervision component of her release were not part of any access to children if she is given parole. The children of her own will be adults by the time she is released. If she is still considered a danger to children or even adults, subject to any future change in the law, she will remain in prison until her death.
Second, for Hughes' sentence, this may be one most ripe for reconsideration. Although 21 years is a considerable length of time, and seems to have followed the relevant sentencing guidelines, the reality of Hughes potentially being released after 10 and a half years of imprisonment sits uncomfortably in what is a highly distressing case. Release at the half point is of course not presumed, and a parole hearing will be necessary to determine the appropriateness of Hughes' release, however, it is the fact that Hughes will be eligible for release after this period of time that has attracted scrutiny. As with Tustin's release, it would be expected that the terms added to his release regarding contact with children would be extremely strict, and perhaps most likely to be completely exclusionary of all contact with children.
Concluding remarks: What sentence is 'enough'?
Sadly, no punishment will ever bring back the life of this child. For those who truly loved Arthur, justice can never be done. For Uncle Blake, who had to read Arthur's harrowing calls for his help, yet never have the chance to come to his recuse, grief will surely never leave him. For them no sentence will be enough. All the court can do is find a term that is as proportionate as it can within the law, and in perspective of other grim and distressing cases that bear similarity to this one.
Tustin
Proportionality when sentencing has become ever more important in maintaining the legitimacy of the justice system. Considering Tustin's lengthy minimum term and the earliest age she will be at the point of her parole eligibility, the proportionality of her sentence is within the realm of reasonable expectation. To increase the minimum term, for instance to 35 or even 40 years, would place her at quite an advanced age by the time of her first potential release. She would face even greater employment, income and housing difficulties than a typical newly released prisoner, which would almost certainly become the burden of the state to care for her. Although these difficulties will be experienced with her existing sentence, those would become insurmountable if the court extended the minimum term. Housing and income support would be a practical certainty rather than a mere probability, placing a greater burden on the taxpayer.
A further possibility is changing the minimum term to a 'whole life term' with there being no possibility of parole but this encounters difficulties of comparison and context. As distressing as this case is, there are unfortunately worse offenders with many victims, many serious previous convictions and where the abuse is even more heinous and cruel than that of this case. Raising this sentence to that level not only dilutes the severity of those sentences, reserved for the most depraved offenders or very high risk individuals, but also decreases the overall legitimacy of sentencing decisions as was mentioned previously. Therefore, a meaningful increase to Tustin's sentence could be seen to be disproportionate.
Though Boris Johnson among others have called for a "whole life" term under an Arthur's law reform, this I believe would be ill-advised. Law created in response to a specific case with specific facts can often be ill-equipped to deal with the differing complexities and nuances of cases that may follow its namesake, restricting the judge's discretion even further than it already has been.
Hughes
With Hughes' sentence, matters might be different. It is important that his sentence is lower than that of Tustin's as his involvement in Arthur's death was not as direct. However, considering release at half time served is commonplace, his particularly chilling encouragement of abuse and the part that he played in Arthur's death, there are perhaps reasons to see his sentence as lenient. If Tustin is to serve 29 years at a minimum, then it might appropriate that what Hughes serves is much nearer to the 29 years that she will service as opposed to the10 and a half years he currently faces as an absolute minimum, adjusting the whole sentence with that in mind.
The evidence shows us how extreme Arthur's abuse was with over 130 separate injuries. Hughes was shown to encourage that abuse. Not just that, but the case showed recordings and the reporting of Arthur's abuse were sent to him by Tustin whilst he was at work, as if to win his approval. From this it could be said that the purpose of the abuse was for his gratification, and at least intensified by his encouragement. From that, he enabled and empowered the horrendous abuse of his own son. It is difficult to know if this is an accurate characterisation based on the limited evidence that has been reported, but based on the presumption it is an accurate depiction, it would be sensible to see his sentence increased with greater resemblance of that given to Tustin's.
It should be noted however that from an examination of the sentencing guidelines for manslaughter shows a sentence that does correctly fall into a range of what is prescribed for this kind of case. It is the particular degree of cruelty and severity this case involves which, I think, warrants a sentence exercising discretion above that of the normal range. Only in exceptional cases should such a discretion should be exercised, but I believe this is such a case that justifies that.
Future of this case
The Attorney Generals Office has referred both sentences for review under the unduly lenient scheme in December 2021. The government also announced there would be a national enquiry into the case, as a specific part of investigating the protection of children in the country as a whole.