Radio 5 Live asked me to comment on the type of sentence Huw Edwards was likely to receive as the sentencing hearing at Westminster Magistrates drew near. I turned the invitation down because I am not a criminal lawyer, but was prepared to comment on the result from the standpoint of the victim/survivor of abuse in retrospect. I predicted that he might get 2 years, so was surprised when the stipendiary magistrate on Monday 16th September gave him a 6 month sentence, suspended for 2 years. According to the BBC
The 63-year-old faced chief magistrate Paul Goldspring at Westminster Magistrates’ Court today, two months after pleading guilty to three charges of making indecent images of children.
Today we heard remarks from the prosecution and defence outlining the case, plus mitigating factors.
After being told his reputation was in “tatters”, Edwards was given a six-month suspended sentence for a period of two years.
He will also be placed on the sex offenders’ register for seven years, and undergo rehabilitation. It caps a major fall from grace for the man who, until earlier this year, was the BBC’s best-paid journalist.
I was then asked to an interview for Talk TV, so decided to do some research. Social Media was awash with very angry comments from survivors of abuse, whom I represent. The feeling was that Edwards should have received a custodial sentence, and that his mitigation was paper thin. It was said that his celebrity status had afforded him undeserved privilege.
Mitigation
So what was his mitigation?
- He was mentally unwell, which he accepted, and had received treatment. He presented to the Court a psychiatric report.
- He was at risk of suicide, so bad was his condition. The risk was “high and significant” should he be sent to prison
- He had a drink problem
- He had been referred for a sex offender’s treatment programme.
- He had no memory of viewing the images, though he had downloaded and paid for them.
- He had no previous convictions
- He was extremely contrite, and remorseful.
Grounds for Suspended Sentence
Whilst the prosecution argued that Edwards runs a risk of re-offending, Chief Magistrate Paul Goldspring said: “It is not an exaggeration to say your long-earned reputation is in tatters”, He also 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”. This was the justification for the suspension of the sentence of imprisonment.
The magistrate said that Edwards did not pose a risk to the public or children and an immediate custodial sentence was not necessary because the evidence showed he could be rehabilitated.
Talk TV Interview
So what did I say as a guest on Talk TV?
- I reiterated that the victims were furious and thought that it was one rule for celebrities and another rule for everyone else, and that a custodial sentence should have been imposed.
- The standard tariff for the most serious offence was 12 months, but for all the offences 26 weeks to 3 years, so was this a lenient sentence?
- This is not a victimless crime because the images were of live children who had been abused, and whose image could be viewed over and over again without them being able to stop it.
- The effect on my clients was triggering. When such a high profile crime is publicised it reminds my clients of their abuse and worsens their mental health.
- The mother of the young lad who had been paid to supply Edwards with the images wrote a letter to the Sun newspaper explaining how the case had ruined the family’s lives. I explained that abuse is about the kick the abuser gets from exploiting a younger vulnerable person, and the imbalance of power.
- I confirmed how abuse is a life sentence for the victim who never recovers and suffers lifelong effects such as severe mental health problems, inability to form relationships with the same and the opposite sex, employment problems, and trust issues.
You can listen to the interview on this YouTube link
Conclusion
So, in conclusion, was the sentence of Huw Edwards fair and reasonable? Interviewees on the media argued that a suspended sentence for a first offence was appropriate, and that making an example of a celebrity was not recommended. My friend, who is a Criminal Defence Barrister does these types of cases all the time, and confirms that for a first offender with no previous convictions a suspended sentence was correct. Of particular importance, and of compelling persuasion was the fact that Alex Williams, the young lad who Edwards importuned for the images received a suspended sentence. Parity, therefore, dictated that Edwards be treated similarly.
