Did Huw Edwards’ celeb standing maintain him out of jail?

Huw Edwards‘ mental health may have been a key factor that kept him out of prison, lawyers told MailOnline today. 

The disgraced BBC News star’s remorse and prison overcrowding could also have been considerations that counted in his favour. 

The 63-year-old was sentenced by a magistrate to six months in prison suspended for two years after admitting three charges of ‘making’ indecent photographs.

Liam Kotrie, a criminal defence solicitor at Mary Monson Solicitors who has dealt with ‘hundreds’ of sex abuse image cases, said first time offenders were very rarely jailed. 

However, he said it was ‘very rare’ for someone like Edwards who had received a Category A image – the most serious category – not be sentenced in crown court or receive a sexual harm prevention order. 

‘I’ve never heard of a case of possession of category A images that stayed in magistrates court for sentencing, it’s very unusual. I’ve never had that and I’ve done hundreds of them,’ he told MailOnline. 

‘And the fact that he didn’t receive a sexual harm prevention order is very rare. 

‘I had a case where someone had a handful of Category C images where someone managed to convince a judge not to give them a sexual harm prevention order, but they are almost always given for these cases. 

‘I can’t say why this case stayed in magistrates court. But the only difference I can see to the vast majority of cases is Huw Edwards’ celebrity.’

There has been criticism in some quarters over the decision not to hand Edwards a prison sentence when many people involved in recent far-right rioting had been jailed.  

But Mr Kotrie said the jailing of rioters was a response to a ‘national crisis’ that required courts to ‘set an example’ to deter further unrest and said first-time offenders for sex abuse image possession offences were very rarely jailed. 

‘I’ve never had a client who has gone to prison on the first occasion,’ he said. 

‘Most of the time these cases involve middle age or older men who are suffering from some kind of mental health condition, often depression, who find themselves committing these offences, and don’t do it again. 

‘The reason is rehabilitation is key and it works. When someone is caught for this offence it’s very unlikely to reoffend. 

‘The rioting was a national crisis and had to be nipped in the bud immediately. And it was done so by fast tracking cases and handing immediate prison sentences. 

‘This was within days of those offences taking place. These cases of possession of indecent images take years to get to court and aren’t nearly as good a chance to set an example. 

‘That was an almost unique, or very rare situation, where there was a societal breakdown in certain towns.’

Maria Karaiskos KC, criminal barrister at Church Court Chambers, said the judge would have taken into account various factors when deciding Edwards’ sentence. 

‘The Court will have considered whether Edwards has a history of similar or repeat offending and whether he poses a risk of similar behaviour in the future,’ she said. 

‘Balanced with this are mitigating factors such as remorse, lack of previous convictions, and Edwards’ evident mental health struggles. Prison overcrowding is also a factor the Court must now take into account, given recent concerns over capacity.

‘Some have noted the sentencing of recent rioters in light of today’s news. In Edwards’ case, the Court has followed the applicable Sentencing Guidelines, taking into account the appropriate mitigating factors. His guilty plea at the first hearing was also a factor in this decision.’ 

Alan Collins, partner at the sex abuse team at Hugh James law firm, pointed out that many rioters had ‘little mitigation’. 

He told MailOnline: ‘Edwards’ defence argued the case for his ill mental health, alongside the fact he did not go on and distribute the images himself. Had it not been for this mitigation, he would have gone to prison immediately.’

Nicola Bruce, senior associate at Olliers Solicitors, said Edwards’ sentence was ‘standard’ and what she would ‘expect to see’. 

‘In reaching its decision, the court would have taken into account the credit for Edwards’s early guilty pleas, which reduces a sentence by one-third, his remorse, previous good character and the recommendation provided by the Probation Service in the Pre-Sentence Report,’ she said. 

‘The sentence received by Edwards is standard and what I would expect to see considering the facts and circumstances of his case, namely the number of offences and his background.

‘Following his guilty plea, Edwards would have automatically been made subject to notification requirements as part of the Sex Offender Registration for seven years (this is mandatory).

‘Whilst he is a public figure, this should not be compared to the sentence passed to the rioters, whose sentences were subjected to uplifts due to the racial aggravation and targeting of emergency workers.’

Edwards was sentenced at a hearing at Westminster Magistrates’ Court today.

The chief magistrate, district judge Paul Goldspring, said: ‘Perhaps it does not need saying but you are of previous good character, I accept positive exemplary character, having enjoyed a very successful career in the media.

‘It is obvious that until now you were very highly regarded by the public for your dedication and professionalism, you were perhaps the most recognised news reader/journalist in the UK.

‘It is not an exaggeration to say your long-earned reputation is in tatters.’

The judge also said that the financial and reputational damage Edwards suffered was ‘the natural consequence of your behaviour which you brought upon yourself’.

He told the court: ‘I make clear that the loss of your distinguished career and the financial and reputational damage caused are not, in my view, significant mitigating factors, but rather natural consequences of your behaviour which you brought upon yourself.’

Judge Goldspring said it is ‘obvious that these are extremely serious offences’, quoting the author of the pre-sentence report who wrote: ‘The continued distribution of child abuse images perpetuates a cycle of abuse to fulfil the demand for the sexualisation of children.

‘Victims may be aware that their images may be or are still circulating on the internet, and this can lead to feelings of on-going traumatisation.

‘The impact of child sexual abuse involving imagery can be severe and lifelong, with the potential for children to be re-victimised each time images are viewed. They may feel guilt, shame, and self-blame, and be vulnerable to further sexual abuse.’

He highlighted the young ages of children involved in two of the Category A images, in which one child is aged around seven to nine, as a ‘significant aggravating feature’.

The judge accepted that Edwards did not make payments in order to pay for images to be sent.

‘I agree with the prosecution analysis, this appears to be by way of an apparent ‘thank you’, but not ‘purchasing’ images in a way more often seen in such cases,’ he said.

The chief magistrate said the medical evidence appears to confirm that Edwards had no memory of viewing any particular image because of his mental health at the time, and accepted that the former broadcaster did not store or send the images or gain any gratification from them.

The court was taken through details of Edwards’s mental health history, with reference made to one report by a consultant psychiatrist and neuropsychiatrist that recorded Edwards took two months of sick leave ‘following an anonymous denunciation’ in 2018.

The same psychiatrist concluded Edwards was at ‘considerable risk of harm from others’ and the risk of taking his own life was ‘high and significant’ if he was imprisoned.

Another medical report, by a forensic psychosexual therapist, said: ‘The feelings of being desirable and unseen alongside Mr Edwards’ unresolved sexual orientation created a perfect storm where he engaged in sexual infidelities and became vulnerable to people blackmailing him.’

The judge said he believed the former broadcaster’s remorse was genuine and that his mental health at the time of the offences could have impaired his decision-making.

On Edwards’ risk of reoffending, the judge said: ‘I am of the clear view that you do not present a risk or danger to the public at large, specifically to children. There is a realistic prospect of rehabilitation.’

He declined to make a sexual harm prevention order against Edwards.