Child Care Solicitors

Across the weekend numerous tributes have been paid to six-year-old Arthur Labinjo-Hughes, whose death has dominated news outlets for the past week as they outlined the relentless abuse and torture he suffered at the hands of his father, Thomas Hughes, and stepmother, Emma Tustin, following their trials.

After his death, a total of 130 bruises across 93 different areas of injury were discovered on his body. He was found to have been poisoned with extraordinarily high levels of salt, with CCTV showing him struggling even to stand in his final days. The recordings from the home further showed him being denied food and drink, and standing isolated for hours on end. The abuse culminated in an un-survivable head injury inflicted by Emma Tustin on 16th June 2020 from which Arthur died in hospital the following day. The injury was said to be consistent with having been "vigorously shaken and his head banged repeatedly against a hard surface".

Following a seven-week trial, Emma Tustin was convicted of murder and sentenced to a minimum term of 29 years in prison, while Thomas Hughes was sentenced to 21 years for manslaughter, with a jury finding he had encouraged this pattern of escalating abuse. These sentences have since been referred to the Attorney General for review following concerns that they are not lengthy enough.

The case has shocked and moved the country by providing a brutally truthful insight into some of the abuse suffered by children across the country. However, for those working in child protection, who are frequently presented with children suffering from elements of this abuse, this case serves as a reminder of the awful consequences of the child protection system breaking down, and the need for improvement.

Whilst an urgent investigation has been launched to determine how Arthur came to be failed by the systems designed to protect him, this tragic account and the evidence heard by the court in the seven week trial raises three particular points about the child protection system in the UK, namely, the impact of the pandemic, the workload of social workers and the effectiveness of procedures currently in place following a primary carer being sent to prison for an unrelated offence.

It is indisputable that the pandemic and various lockdown periods have made it easier for perpetrators to conceal abuse as well as creating a ‘pressure-cooking environment for families’. Social workers reduced the frequency of in-person visits, if able to carry them out at all. The absence of face-to-face education withdrew an additional safeguarding layer with teachers unable to spot injuries, behavioural changes and warning signs. In Arthur’s case, telephone contact did not suffice as a replacement with Hughes telling teachers that Arthur was ‘grand’ and ‘enjoying the sunshine’, excusing Arthur’s absence, and other calls simply going unanswered.

Statistics published on the government website show that referrals for services to be provided by children’s social care to a child not already in need declined almost 8,000 (1%) during the year ending 31st March 2020. This is almost all accounted for by a drop in referrals in March 2020, which were over 8,500 lower than in 2018 and almost 10,000 lower than in 2019, while the preceding eleven months were at a similar level to previous years. The decrease is therefore highly likely to correlate to the implementation of the national lockdown. However, this is in no way an indication that less children were suffering; the number of child deaths and cases of serious harm reported by councils in 2020-21 rose by almost 20% from the previous year according to Department for Education data.

It is clear that the abuse of the most vulnerable did not stop, but it was better hidden, and support and intervention were lacking. Only after Arthur’s death have professionals been able to see the abuse he suffered for months, having looked at his injuries and the chilling message-exchanges between Tustin and Hughes, as well as 22 pictures and videos, and over 200 audio files recorded by Arthur’s stepmother of his suffering.

However, this does not mean to say that there were no indications of abuse. To the contrary, several family members raised concerns to professionals, with Arthur’s grandmother and uncle, as well as Emma Tustin’s stepfather contacting social services and police to report their observations and worries. Solihull Council’s children team did make a visit to the home, but failed to recognise any cause for concern. Further, Arthur is himself reported to have made fearful remarks to his teachers at Dickens Heath Primary School which should have raised alarms but were not properly reported and pursued.

In the aftermath of his death, and the recent trials of his father and stepmother which have unveiled the harrowing details of his time in their care, people look for answers as to how Arthur’s tragic death was allowed to occur, particularly given the lessons supposedly learned following similar cases such as that of Peter Connelly, better known as ‘Baby P’, and Victoria Climbié.

Lord Laming, who led a public inquiry into Victoria Climbié’s death between 2000 and 2002 following her death at the hands of her great aunt and her partner, referenced the consistent reduction of funding of local authorities over the past decade as well as the need for a review of the training of social workers to be able to spot signs of abuse. Whilst the exact details of observations and opportunities missed in Arthur’s case may not yet be apparent, social workers more widely continue to bear more cases and responsibility than is manageable, inevitably meaning that the support they are able to provide is not to the standard it could or should be. Some experts have suggested that in light of the deaths of those such as Daniel Pelka, who was murdered by his mother and her partner in 2012 following missed opportunities to recognise and stop the abuse he suffered, and Baby P, statutory reporting has led to an overload of information which is unmanageable. According to one survey, the average caseload figure for children’s social workers is around 24, almost 8 higher than that reported by the Department for Education.

The investigation currently underway will involve all relevant professional bodies, intended to identify these institutional problems as well as those isolated to this particular case, and reportedly will also include consideration as to any necessary guidelines to protect children who are at risk of abuse in the event of further lockdowns. Despite being titled a ‘national review’, this investigation has been isolated to Solihull agencies, and will not match the scale of investigations seen following previous incidents with remarkable similarities.

It therefore remains to be seen whether this investigation will be followed by the necessary changes and action.

Whilst nearly all of the criticism and questions have so far been directed at professionals for ‘missing the signs’ of abuse in the final months of Arthur’s life, the question must be asked, how did Arthur come to be left, without supervision or support, in the care of Emma Tustin, someone already known to social services due to concerns regarding domestic violence?

Olivia Labinjo-Halcrow, Arthur’s mother, and his father had previously shared care of Arthur, but when Olivia was convicted of stabbing her then-partner in February 2019, he went into full-time care of his father who subsequently began a relationship with Emma Tustin. Ms Abinjo-Halcrow’s conviction was initially quashed after she stated she had been the victim of sexual abuse, with judges ruling she may have acted in self-defence, but she was convicted again this year and jailed for 11 years.

Whilst Arthur’s mother could no longer care for him, the case does raise questions about the adequacy of assessments, monitoring and support available when a child’s primary carer is placed in prison. This is particularly true given the struggles that imprisoned mothers face in maintaining contact or relationships with their children during their sentences for unrelated incidents, even those which do not exceed 6 months in length, despite arguably being most aware of their children’s needs, behaviours, and changes therein.

This issue cannot be put down to individual fault and fixed with disciplinary action, this case is indicative of a much wider problem which in fact has received little media or legislative attention at all.

That is not to say the issue has not been recognised. Not Beyond Redemption, set up by Camilla Baldwin, is a pro bono legal clinic working to ensure that mothers in prison have access to justice and are aware of their rights. Its lawyers, volunteers and trustees work to re-establish and maintain critical access and relationships between mothers and their children, and recognise that a key impact of their imprisonment is the placement of children in care arrangements which are unsuitable. They do this by representing mothers, corresponding and liaising with family members, social workers, experts, and by providing legal advice and emotional support. The clinic has assisted women at HMP Send in Woking since 2018, and hopes to expand its initiative to all 13 women’s prisons across the UK.

Following Ms Labinjo-Halcrow’s imprisonment, Arthur’s father stopped his maternal grandmother from seeing him, taking away further layers of protection. Upon the lockdown, Arthur was moved into Emma Tustin’s property and was regularly left alone in her care despite her involvement with social services. Had Arthur maintained contact with his mother and maternal family, perhaps this needless death could have been prevented.

Whilst this work and its expansion are crucial in tackling a problem facing over 17,000 children and families a year, this problem, like those outlined above, are on no small scale. The systematic and institutional problems facing child protection are in desperate need of addressing. Without change, we will continue to fail to protect the most vulnerable members of society, those unable to defend themselves, those like Arthur Labinjo-Hughes.


About the Authors:

Ravi Kaur Mahey is a Director and Solicitor in the Child Care Team. Ravi has practised in Children law for 20 years and is a Trustee of the Charity Not Beyond Redemption. You can contact Ravi by emailing ravim@duncanlewis.com or calling 020 3114 1102.


Bethany Arrowsmith is a Caseworker in the Child Care Team and assists Ravi on her complex cases involving children. Beth read law at the University of Oxford and keen to pursue a career tackling these challenging issues and campaigning for reform. You can contact Beth by emailing Bethanyar@duncanlewis.com.