Arthur Labinjo-Hughes’ killer’s prison sentence extended by three years

The Court of Appeal increased the prison term of one of the killers, Arthur Labinjo-Hughes, by three years.

the six-year-old’s stepmother, 32-year-old Emma Tustin, was sentenced to life in prison with a minimum of 29 years for murder, while his father, 29-year-old Thomas Hughes, was sentenced to 21 years for manslaughter last December.

Hughes’ prison sentence was extended to 24 years after the couple appealed their sentences in May.

Their sentences have also been challenged as being excessively lenient.

However, the judges refused to change Tustin’s sentence, feeling that she should not be given a life sentence and that her current sentence was not unduly lenient.


(West Midlands Police)

The Court of Appeal had previously been told that the child suffered a terminal head injury and faced “systematic cruelty amounting to torture”, leading to his death.

Arthur from Solihull in the West Midlands was poisoned, starved and beaten.

On Friday, Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett said: “Anyone looking at the detailed written material we have seen and the CCTV footage will find it hard to imagine how someone, let alone someone, is jointly responsible for his care, could relate to Arthur. like Tustin did.

“The child abuse she was involved in would be at the top of the scale for sentencing purposes if she was considered separately.”

The judge continued: “The attack mechanisms reflected explosive violence calculated to cause maximum harm, and not sadism in the usual sense of the word.

“This case by itself would not drag this case into the 30-year minimum territory.

“It was the long and serious cruelty that preceded, in which there was indeed an element of sadism, in the opinion of the judge, firmly put this case at the starting point of at least 30 years.”

He continued: “In our view, the judge was right to take 30 years as his starting point for the main reason he gave, which was because it correctly reflected the seriousness of Arthur’s murder and the horrendous brutality that Tustin was responsible for. what came before it.”

Tustin appealed only the child abuse case.

Tom Little, QC representing the Attorney General’s Office (AGO), said that Tustin’s case “deserves at least a life order”.

In written submissions, Mr. Little said the trial judge did not properly consider whether Tustin’s crimes were so serious that they required a life restraining order.

Hughes’ sentence was deemed excessively lenient and increased to 24 years.

Lord Burnett said in Friday’s verdict: “We believe there is ground in the Attorney General’s argument regarding manslaughter that in inciting Tustin to harm Arthur in the way he did, there was a significant risk that she would do something that will kill him.”

He continued: “Manslaughter was rife with aggravating circumstances, including as serious a breach of trust as one could imagine for a little boy who was especially vulnerable, not least because of Hughes’ own behavior.

“He lied to Arthur’s school to keep him at home to protect himself and Tustin.”

The judge added: “Without regard for cruelty, manslaughter deserves a sentence of 18 years or more.

“The opinion of the judge was that the crime was almost a murder, and, as we have said, the risk of death, given the previous behavior, was real.

“In our opinion, a suitable sentence is 24 years in prison, taking into account all offenses.”

Mary Pryor, Tustin QC, argued that the sentencing judge took “a fair and proper approach in this very difficult case”.

Ms Pryor said the “toxicity of the relationship” between Tustin and Hughes created a scenario in which they both abused Arthur.

She added, “At least Thomas Hughes encouraged Emma Tustin to be brutal, assault and abuse his son.”