Disgraced broadcaster Huw Edwards was unlikely to face jail time due to the nature of his case, according to a legal expert.
The BBC presenter confessed to accessing indecent images of children as young as seven but was given a suspended prison sentence and walked free from court on Monday.
This led to questions about the appropriateness of his punishment and whether he should be incarcerated. BBC director-general Tim Davie has since stated that he “can’t see” Edwards ever working for the corporation again following his “appalling crimes”.
READ MORE: Huw Edwards claims he has ‘no memory’ of viewing child abuse images as he’s sentenced
All our Huw Edwards coverage can be found in one place
Chief Magistrate Paul Goldspring, who sentenced at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, said the 63 year old’s reputation was “in tatters” and his reputational and financial damage was the “natural consequence of your behaviour which you brought upon yourself”.
Despite Edwards’ previously “exemplary” good character before committing the crimes, the judge was of the “clear view” that the broadcaster did “not present a risk or danger to the public at large, specifically to children” and there was a “realistic prospect of rehabilitation”, explaining the reasons for the sentence.
(Image: PA Wire/PA Images)
Malcolm Johnson, head of abuse claims at firm Lime Solicitors, told the PA news agency: “The magistrate felt that Edwards did not need to go to prison to protect the public.”
He added, “In a case of this nature, a custodial sentence was never likely.”
“This was an offender who presented himself to court, having made a guilty plea at the first opportunity, with evidence of mental health problems and expressing remorse.”
Magistrates are bound by sentencing guidelines which dictate the criteria they must adhere to for different sentences to ensure uniformity.
This will encompass considering the magnitude of the crime, to determine the starting point for the punishment, and any aggravating and mitigating factors.
The sentence is then lessened when mitigating factors are considered.
In the Edwards case, the judge cited these as mitigating factors in his sentencing remarks: No previous convictions; remorse, positive character in the past; mental disorder; and that he seemed to have “voluntarily desisted” or “at least asked not to be sent underage images” during the WhatsApp chat.
He also acknowledged Edwards could be “particularly vulnerable in a custodial setting” but emphasised this “alone” would not have stopped an immediate custodial sentence.
The risk an offender poses to the public and whether there is a realistic chance of rehabilitation are then weighed up when deciding if a suspended sentence is suitable which means Edwards will dodge jail unless he commits another crime during a specified period.
Criminals also receive a reduction in sentence for pleading guilty, up to a maximum discount if they opt to do so at the earliest opportunity.
Edwards copped to three counts of “making” indecent snaps after getting 41 dodgy images from convicted nonce Alex Williams on WhatsApp. He dodged jail with a six-month suspended sentence for two years.
The court was told Edwards egged on Williams, asking for “naughty pics and vids” of someone called “yng (sic)” and shelled out wads of cash for the filth.
His defence claimed Edwards didn’t fork over the dosh for child abuse images though.
The kids in the sick pics were mostly aged 13 to 15, but one was just seven to nine, including seven of the worst kind, category A.
Mr Johnson pointed out that Williams also got off with a suspended sentence for handing out indecent images after pleading guilty in March.
Amidst the uproar about Edwards not being banged up and whispers of a “two tier justice system,” The Secret Barrister chimed in on social media site X: “This is an entirely expected sentence for offences of this type.”
Sentencing Council guidelines state: “Passing the custody threshold does not mean that a custodial sentence should be deemed inevitable.”
“Custody should not be imposed where a community order could provide sufficient restriction on an offender’s liberty (by way of punishment) while addressing the rehabilitation of the offender to prevent future crime.”