Fury because it emerges Huw Edwards’ ‘lenient’ sentence cannot be reviewed

The sentence given to disgraced BBC star Huw Edwards cannot be reviewed or increased despite a barrage of complaints calling it too lenient.

The former news presenter received a six-month suspended sentence on Monday after pleading guilty to possessing indecent images of children as young as seven.

The outcome sparked outrage from campaign groups, who said it was ‘ludicrous, absurd and embarrassing’ that he was allowed to walk out of court instead of being sent immediately to prison.

Lord Richard Hermer KC, who is the Attorney General and the government’s top legal advisor, is understood to have received multiple complaints from members of the public and politicians, including Tory leadership hopeful Tom Tugendhat, urging him to refer the case to the Court of Appeal.

However, current rules mean that Edwards’ case cannot be referred to appeal court judges, sparking calls for them to be changed.

When cases are referred to the Court of Appeal, judges can increase sentences if they believe they have been unduly lenient. 

But, according to the Attorney General’s office, only sentences handed down by Crown Courts can be looked at under the scheme.

As the married father-of-five was sentenced at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, this means his case is ineligible to be referred.

It has sparked more fury among victims campaigners, with Dame Vera Baird, the former Labour solicitor general, telling The Telegraph: ‘It seems odd that there is a workable scheme for unduly lenient sentences in the Crown Court which the public can ask the Attorney General to consider.

‘Yet, there is nothing that could help a member of the public who was a victim of what could be a very serious assault or sexual abuse or any interested party to make a formal application on a sentence in the magistrates’ court.’

Richard Tice, the deputy leader of Reform UK, told the paper that the ‘pathetic sentence’ meant there could be grounds for a retrial.

He said: ‘I believe the Crown Prosecution Service or Attorney General can ask for retrial by Crown Court judge acting as District Judge since it was wrongly allocated to magistrates’ court under section 66 of Courts Act 2003. If not then rules must be changed. Should never have been dealt with at such a low court.’ 

An analysis of official data by the paper found that more than 7,000 people caught with child sex abuse images have avoided prison in the last three years, with fewer than 20 per cent of those convicted being put behind bars with the rest given suspended or community sentences.

Last night shadow security minister Tom Tugendhat wrote to Lord Hermer to raise concerns about how the former television anchor was able to escape an immediate custodial sentence.

He said the decision appeared to be ‘inconsistent’ with the guidelines for Edwards’ offence, which usually carries custodial time.

‘It is crucial that sentences serve as a deterrent and reflect the serious nature of these crimes,’ he said.

‘As a national household name, the country have been shocked by the criminal activities of Mr Edwards. I am sure that they will be looking to the Government to lead by example and ensure that heinous crimes are punished swiftly and appropriately,’ he added.

‘I urge you to formally review this case under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme. A reassessment would not only address public concern but also reinforce our commitment to protecting vulnerable individuals and upholding justice.’

Edwards had faced a potential prison sentence on Monday as he appeared in court after being sent 41 indecent images of children by convicted paedophile Alex Williams.

The 63-year-old had wired thousands of pounds to Williams, who sent him porn, some of which he called ‘amazing’. 

The disgraced broadcaster had also told the convicted paedophile ‘go on’ when asked if he wanted ‘naughty pics and vids’ of somebody described as young.

Edwards wrote ‘yes xxx’ when he was asked by Williams if he wanted sexual images of a person whose ‘age could be discerned as being between 14 and 16’. 

He was also sent two pornographic videos of a child aged between seven and nine-years-old.

At Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Monday, Edwards held his hands together and leaned forward throughout his sentencing hearing. He then let out a ‘small sigh’ as he was handed six months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years.

Edwards smiled broadly as he left the courtroom accompanied by a member of his legal team – carrying the same small suitcase he had brought with him, possibly in anticipation of being jailed.

He later walked onto the street with his legal team before being driven away in a black Mercedes. A mugshot released of the presenter showed him staring at the camera – dead eyed and gaunt – with silver stubble across his face.

There was also criticism from victims’ groups, with Emma-Jane Taylor, who founded the Not My Shame social media movement last year, claimed the sentence Edwards’ received could encourage other abusers.

She told Good Morning Britain: ‘This potentially green lights another more serious situation for a child. It puts children at risks because abusers will look at this and think ”actually, this guy’s got off, he’s gone home, I’ll give it a go”.

‘The justice system in the UK is ludicrous. It’s absurd, embarrassing and it’s not going to protect children.’

Edwards’ former BBC colleagues are also disgusted by his crimes and believe he should have been sent to prison, MailOnline previously revealed.

One former colleague told MailOnline: ‘He should be in prison. He was chatting with a paedo for four years who then sent him child porn. And he didn’t go to the police. Yet he’s in court trying to suggest he is a victim. It would be laughable if it wasn’t so abhorrent’.

Edwards, who resigned from the BBC in April, has been asked to repay the £200,000 salary he has received since his arrest. He has so far refused. And will also keep his pension.

MailOnline can reveal there is great animosity towards him at the Beeb, who have been rocked by yet another child sex scandal after Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris.

One BBC staffer said: ‘He still hasn’t repaid his salary and dragged us through the mud again.

‘Many at the BBC want him to pay for what he has done. He has played the system’.

A former colleague said: ‘Huw had huge talent and presence but has always been very prickly and thin-skinned’.

A BBC spokesperson said after its former broadcaster Huw Edwards was sentenced: ‘We are appalled by his crimes. He has betrayed not just the BBC, but audiences who put their trust in him.’