A woman has been jailed for life with a minimum term of 29 years for starving, poisoning and then murdering her six-year-old stepson Arthur Labinjo-Hughes.
Her partner - Arthur’s dad, Thomas Hughes has been jailed for 21 years for manslaughter.
Arthur, 6, was left with an unsurvivable brain injury while in the sole care of 32-year-old Tustin, after she had cruelly abused, starved and poisoned him.
She fatally assaulted the boy in the hallway of her home in Cranmore Road, Solihull, on June 16 2020, using severe force.
He died in hospital the following day.
Tustin was unanimously convicted on Thursday of Arthur’s murder after an eight-week trial at Coventry Crown Court, with the boy’s “pitiless” father, Thomas Hughes, 29, found guilty of his manslaughter, after encouraging the killing.
She was also convicted of two counts of child cruelty, including salt-poisoning and withholding food and drink from Arthur.
She had admitted two other cruelty counts, wilfully assaulting Arthur on three occasions and isolating him, including by forcing him to stand in the hallway for up to 14 hours a day as part of a draconian punishment regime.
Labourer Hughes was also convicted of the cruelty offences which Tustin had admitted but was cleared of withholding food and drink, or of poisoning his own son with salt.
It emerged at trial that Arthur had been seen by social workers just two months before his death, after concerns were raised by his paternal grandmother, Joanne Hughes, but they concluded there were “no safeguarding concerns”. An independent review is now going to be carried out.
After the sentencing hearing the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson said “no child should ever suffer” in the way Arthur Labinjo-Hughes did, and that there are questions that need to be answered over the case.
What was said during the sentencing hearing?
At the start of the pair’s sentencing hearing at Coventry Crown Court on Friday, Arthur’s paternal grandmother Joanne Hughes read a victim impact statement on behalf of her family.
The secondary school teacher said Arthur, as a “happy, contented, thriving seven-year-old” would “be alive today” had her son not met Tustin.
But she added: “It is also clear that Arthur was failed by the very authorities that we, as a society, are led to believe are there to ensure the safety of everyone.”
Arthur’s maternal grandmother, Madeleine Halcrow, in a victim impact statement delivered on behalf of the boy’s natural mother, Olivia Labinjo-Halcrow, who is in prison for killing her boyfriend, recalled his “beautiful smile” and his “kind, nurturing spirit”, adding that he had been “the light of my life”.
“He was let down by a person he trusted and should have protected him, left alone and isolated, and then they took him away from me,” she said.
“My child, my little love, defenceless, trusting and nothing but loving, was killed.
“His short life stolen and the hole left in me and those who loved Arthur will never be repaired.
“Sleep well, my angel – you are truly loved.”
What had been said during the trial?
After fatally assaulting Arthur, Tustin then took 12 minutes to call 999.
Instead she first rang Hughes, then lied to medics and police that Arthur “fell and banged his head and while on the floor banged his head another five times”.
Tustin, who once referred to Arthur as “Satan”, later claimed he must have thrown himself down the stairs, despite evidence that he was barely strong enough to pick up his own bedding, or stand.
Hughes, of Stroud Road, Solihull, was convicted of encouraging the killing, including by sending a text message to Tustin 18 hours before the fatal assault telling her “just end him”.
On one occasion before his death, Arthur told his father: “I am in danger with you, Dad.”
Tustin was also convicted of two counts of child cruelty, including salt-poisoning and withholding food and drink from Arthur.
Partway through the trial, she admitted two other cruelty counts – wilfully assaulting Arthur on three occasions and isolating him, including by forcing him to stand in the hallway for up to 14 hours a day as part of a draconian punishment regime.
Labourer Hughes was also convicted of the cruelty offences which Tustin had admitted – but was cleared of withholding food and drink, or of poisoning his own son with salt.
An independent review is now under way into the authorities’ contact with Arthur before his death.
What was said by Hughes and Tustin’s defence?
Mary Prior QC, in mitigation for Tustin, told the court her client had made two attempts to take her life during the trial.
Accepting Tustin had shown no real remorse for the death of Arthur, she also said Tustin was “relatively young”, and “likely to spend the very best part of her life – at least – in custody”.
“None of what I have said is intended to justify Ms Tustin’s actions, in any way.”
Bernard Richmond QC, representing Hughes, said: “He was a weak person who gave in to the darkest recess of his personality which, before meeting Ms Tustin, he did not know existed.
“It will be a matter of bitter shame and and bitter regret to him for the rest of his life that he behaved in a way abhorrent to any right-thinking person and let down the person who most needed his love and protection.”
What did the judge say?
Tustin, who was brought to Coventry Crown Court, “refused to come up” to the dock for the duration of the sentencing, Mr Justice Mark Wall QC said at the start of the hearing.
Jailing Tustin and Hughes on Friday, Mr Justice Mark Wall QC said the couple’s campaign of cruel abuse against the defenceless youngster had been “without doubt one of the most distressing and disturbing cases I have had to deal with”.
He told the pair: “This cruel and inhuman treatment of Arthur was a deliberate decision by you to brush off his cries for help as naughtiness.”
Addressing Tustin, whom he said had made a “calculated” decision to kill, he said: “You are a manipulative woman who will tell any lie, and shift the blame onto anyone, to save your own skin.”
He added: “You wanted Thomas Hughes so he could provide for you and your own children, but did not want to be troubled by Arthur any longer.”
The judge called Hughes’ “encouragement” of his girlfriend’s actions “chilling”.
He added: “You were Arthur’s father, in a position of trust and bore primary responsibility for protecting him.
“He was extremely vulnerable and you lied to his school in the last days of Arthur’s life to protect both you and Ms Tustin.”
What else has been said about the case?
Boris Johnson believes “no child should ever suffer” in the way Arthur Labinjo-Hughes did, and that there are questions that need to be answered over the case.
A spokesman for Mr Johnson said: “The Prime Minister found the details of this case deeply disturbing and his thoughts are with those who loved Arthur, and no child should ever suffer in the way that he did.
“It’s clear there are questions that need to be answered to get to the bottom of how this happened.
“You’ll be aware that a local child safeguarding practice review is under way to fully assess the circumstances surrounding Arthur’s tragic death at the hands of those who should have been looking after him, and that review will look at local safeguarding, including police, children’s social care, health and education professionals in the local area.
“We won’t hesitate to take any action off the back of that review.”
He added that the Government’s manifesto had “committed to a review of the children’s social care system to make sure children and young people get the support they need”.
A message from the editor:
Thank you for reading. NationalWorld is a new national news brand, produced by a team of journalists, editors, video producers and designers who live and work across the UK. Find out more about who’s who in the team, and our editorial values. We want to start a community among our readers, so please follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, and keep the conversation going. You can also sign up to our email newsletters and get a curated selection of our best reads to your inbox every day.