My discussion of the sentences in this case was published on this blog in December 2021. I went through the sentences of Emma Tustin and Thomas Hughes in turn and reasoned that whilst Tustin's sentence was probably appropriate, I stated it might also be appropriate to increase Hughes' term to reflect the severity of the case.
It can be viewed here: https://joeslegalblog.blogspot.com/2021/12/lenient-sentences-for-arthur-labinjo.html
Today, 29th July 2022, the Court of Appeal increased Hughes' sentence, deciding it was unduly lenient and raised his custodial term from 21 years to 24 years. It decided not to increased Tustin's sentence.
The decision, which deals with a number of other appeals of high profile cases including Wayne Couzens (Sarah Everard's murderer) can be found in full here: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2022/1063.html
The discussion of the Arthur Labinjo-Hughes case begins at para 146.
In its reasoning for increasing Hughes' sentence, the Court of Appeal drew upon similar points to that of the linked blog post. Notably, the seriousness and cruelty of Hughes' offending and 'that in encouraging Tustin to harm Arthur in the way he did there was a substantial risk that she would do something that would kill him' (para 189) justified increasing the sentence to reflect one of murder, despite being a manslaughter conviction. It acknowledged that the sentencing guideline was applied correctly, though it acknowledged the mechanistic application of the guideline was not always appropriate, particularly for cases such as this one, which involve exceptional cruelty and therefore justify an exceptional sentence.
No comments:
Post a Comment