Arthur - In Memoriam

The amalgamation of absolute horror and total bewilderment is so unsettling it can induce a feeling of disconnection from reality. I have been struck, in discussion with colleagues over the last 24 hours, most of whom have been involved in cases involving terrible things done to children, by how much of an impact the little life and dreadful, dreadful death of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes has had on them and on me also. 

We see children treated as sexual objects, we see children suffering the neglect of the substance addicted, the utterly inadequate and the unwell, we see children disabled or killed in spasms of rage and frustration. But only occasionally do we see children deliberately and gleefully tortured. The bewilderment in this case stems from it being a woman who instigated and orchestrated that relentless campaign of cruelty. 

Of course we should not be bewildered, anyone who knows anything of the evil humans do and the harm they are capable of inflicting upon the weak and the defenceless will know that men, contrary to some popular opinion, hold no monopoly in wrongdoing. And yet so engrained still is the conception of women as protectors and nurturers that a case such as this is nonetheless capable of provoking a feeling of astonishment. 

It was real, it happened and the most painful truth is it will happen again. We all knew the lockdown would enable the bad things that happen behind closed doors to get worse and here is the worst example of those bad things. There will be the inevitable review into the missed opportunities to rescue Arthur and save his life. The cliché of lessons will be learned is now as empty as the response to Arthur’s plaintive and miserable cries that nobody loved him. 

We know it takes a village to raise a child, unfortunately we don’t live in villages anymore but great anonymous cities and towns where although our lives are often shared extravagantly on social media ironically the atomisation of our existences only accelerates. Undoubtedly there were agencies and institutions that should have seen what was happening to Arthur and should have stopped it. Social workers and teachers noticing and enquiring and demanding satisfaction. 

But we must not kid ourselves that the safety nets are working and how could they be? Social workers are paid badly. Their caseloads are unmanageable. The children that are experiencing the most visibly problematic parenting are not necessarily the children suffering the most dangerous and merciless cruelty. I am often relieved as a barrister that although I am exposed to terrible things it is in a very compartmentalised way. My cases have a beginning and end. A social worker’s case is a child’s whole life, existence and upbringing. 

We have agency. We are also subject to a moral imperative. Every time we cast a vote at the ballot box we can send a signal that we will not tolerate this kind of thing. If we vote for politicians that will tolerate it then that is on us. Meanwhile, it is incumbent upon every one of us to practise ceaseless vigilance. Making a nuisance of oneself is a negligible price to pay when a child’s life and future is at stake. Trust your instincts, if there’s a child at your child’s school with regular bruising make enquiry and don’t be fobbed off. If you encounter professional inertia and complacency remind that person of Arthur. 

It is very, very easy to persuade oneself that other people’s lives are other people’s business but the lives of children are everybody’s business.