Five unanswered questions over Huw Edwards scandal

Disgraced former BBC presenter Huw Edwards was spared jail yesterday after admitting accessing indecent images of children as young as seven.

The 63-year-old previously admitted three charges of ‘making’ indecent photos after he was sent 41 illegal images by a convicted paedophile over WhatsApp.

The case at Westminster Magistrates’ Court has now concluded with Edwards being handed six months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years.

But a series of unanswered questions remain – including why the BBC waited so long to reveal the news of his arrest, and whether he will repay any of his salary.

Here, MailOnline looks at the outstanding issues following the sentencing:

Do more messages exist on other platforms?

Huw Edwards admitted three charges of ‘making’ indecent photographs after he was sent 41 illegal images by convicted paedophile Alex Williams over WhatsApp.

The former BBC presenter’s offending came to light after South Wales Police seized Williams’s phone and discovered their WhatsApp conversations.

But the only evidence of their discussions comes from Williams’s phone because the handset used by Edwards was never found and its whereabouts are still unknown.

Edwards and Williams communicated over various platforms, but the only chat that could be recovered was the WhatsApp conversation found on Williams’s phone.

The court heard the WhatsApp messages indicated that a number of social media platforms were used for sharing images, and the men also met in person once.

Now, the mother of a teenager ‘groomed’ by Edwards has questioned whether there could be more victims, given the broadcaster’s device was not seized or examined.

The woman of the man to whom Edwards paid £35,000 for sexually explicit pictures – which is separate from the indecent image offences – said that because police did not recover Edwards’s phone, ‘it makes me think, how many more victims are there?’.

Why did the BBC keep Huw Edwards’s arrest secret?

Huw Edwards was arrested on November 8 last year after South Wales Police discovered that images of children were shared with him on a WhatsApp chat.

On July 31, after Edwards pleaded guilty, the BBC revealed that it had known in November that Edwards had been arrested on suspicion of ‘serious offences’.

BBC News, which is editorially independent when reporting on the BBC, said it was not aware of the arrest nor charges against Edwards until they were made public.

After Edwards pleaded guilty, the corporation said it had been ‘made aware in confidence’ in November last year that Edwards ‘had been arrested on suspicion of serious offences and released on bail whilst the police continued their investigation’.

‘At the time, no charges had been brought against Mr Edwards and the BBC had also been made aware of significant risk to his health,’ the statement added.

The BBC also suggested that Edwards was not dismissed while he was still employed by the corporation because he had not been charged.

It said: ‘If at any point during the period Mr Edwards was employed by the BBC he had been charged, the BBC had determined it would act immediately to dismiss him. In the end, at the point of charge he was no longer an employee of the BBC.’

Edwards resigned on April 22, leaving the BBC ‘on the basis of medical advice from his doctors’, according to the corporation.

Will Huw Edwards repay his salary?

The BBC has asked disgraced presenter Huw Edwards to hand back the £200,000 salary he earned after being arrested for accessing indecent images of children.

The corporation knew the 62-year-old presenter had been arrested last November but continued to pay his salary until he resigned on medical advice this April.

Edwards had been the BBC’s highest-paid newsreader, with its accounts putting him in a pay bracket of between £475,000 and £479,999 for 2023/24. This was a £40,000 pay rise from 2022/23, when he was paid between £435,000 and £439,999.

And the veteran broadcaster, who joined the BBC in 1984, was estimated to have received more than £200,000 pre-tax after his bosses knew of the allegations.

Last week, BBC director-general Tim Davie gave an update on recovering pay from Edwards, in front of the House of Lords’ Communications and Digital Committee.

Mr Davie said: ‘We’ve made the formal request, and I can’t go into too much detail, but discussions are under way, but I’ve got no further news, apart from the BBC’s position is clear, the money should be returned, and we made the request.’

When asked if he had set a deadline, Mr Davie told the committee: ‘I don’t believe we set a deadline… but we do expect to make progress and get an answer.’

Edwards has not yet made any public comment on whether he will return the money, and the issue was not discussed at Westminster Magistrates’ Court yesterday.

Will the BBC take legal action against Huw Edwards?

Tim Davie told the House of Lords’ Communications and Digital Committee that the BBC will ‘explore’ the legal process if Edwards refuses to hand back his pay.

But the corporation has not confirmed whether any action could actually be taken, and legal experts suggested this could prove extremely complex.

A&O Shearman employment partner Kate Pumfrey said that if Edwards refuses to repay the money, the BBC could look at taking legal action to recover it.

But she continued: ‘It’s unlikely that the BBC would have a contractual right to such repayment and clawback claims are difficult to bring.

‘This is likely why the BBC at this stage have not confirmed whether legal proceedings would be initiated if Edwards refuses make the payments voluntarily.’

Michael Nadin, employment partner at DFA Law LLP, said that because Edwards’ employment continued until April – when he resigned – the BBC ‘would have no automatic right to recoup any payments made to him up to this point’.

He said an exception would be if there was a ‘clause in his employment contract which allowed recovery in these circumstance’ – but this ‘seems very unlikely’.

Will Huw Edwards keep his BBC pension?

It is thought that Edwards could still retire on a BBC pension paying more than £300,000-a-year – giving him financial security despite his criminal record.

The former presenter is said to have been entitled to a pension paying two thirds of his final salary from the age of 60 – provided he never left the scheme.

Dawn Robertson, an employment law specialist from Scottish firm BTO Solicitors, said she cannot see any legal basis for the BBC trying to recoup Edwards’s pension contributions, unless there is something in the contract entitling them to.

She pointed out that the issue of pensions has been highlighted in some high profile police misconduct cases, and there is a specific provision for police pensions which permit forfeiture of the pension in certain cases.

One was Wayne Couzens, the police officer who kidnapped and murdered Sarah Everard, who was stripped of his Metropolitan Police pension after the Home Office was requested to withhold it by the Mayor of London.

The cases include when a pension scheme member has been convicted of treason or of offences under the Official Secrets Acts 1911 and 1939 and has been sentenced to at least ten years in jail.

Another possibility is where a pension scheme member has been convicted of an offence committed in connection with his or her service as a member of a police force, which is certified by the Home Secretary either to have been gravely injurious to the interests of the state, or to be liable to lead to a serious loss of confidence in the public service.

But Ms Robertson added: ‘I am not however aware of any similar provisions for non-police employees.’