Huw Edwards...

Getting off with a minimal sentence. What a surprise.

 

Some might suggest that he's already been getting off plenty as of late

 

His position at the BBC should play no part in sentencing so it should (and has) entirely come down to the scale of his crime. Facts to consider are;

1 that the number of images is very small (most crimes like this involve thousands of images) and only one was category A, the rest being B or C,
2 there were no videos,
3 it was his first offence,
4 he only bought the images and didn't either sell them on or share them,
5 he was suffering mental issues at the time of the offence and finally,
6 he has fully admitted his crime and shown remorse.

None of this excuses him but in the scale of this sort of crime he was a very minor player. The fact that he is a public figure rightly causes outrage amongst the population (me included) but should not be a basis for more severe punishment. A more serious issue for me is the amount of public money he has been receiving whilst this has been going on.

 

He has been sentenced

6 months in prison suspended for 2 years
25 Rehab sessions

 

Mmm. So some of this is misleading, and some of it is just flat wrong. I think we, as a nation, need to seriously consider where we think custodial sentences are appropriate and where they are not. Whether it's the guidelines themselves or the application of them by the judiciary, individuals consuming child pornography are getting sentences that are nowhere near commensurate with the level of harm visited on those who are the victims.

1) There were videos, so statement number 2 is just flat out wrong, it's not true. The category A item was a video, and just so people are clear, this video involved penetration of a minor.
2) One of the images he was sent was of a child aged between 7 and 9 years old, and his response to viewing this was to ask the supplier of these images for more.
3) On your point number 1, this is highly misleading. The police were able to access 41 images which were in the WhatsApp chat, but were unable to access an unknown and likely much greater number of pictures and videos in a Dropbox which were not included in the number of 41.

If you're going to make a post tantamount to trying to mitigate for a child sex offender, I strongly suggest you get your facts straight first. I don't believe anyone seriously thinks he doesn't deserve jail time. Absolutely disgusting depravity.

 

I was quoting Naga Munchetty on Radio 5 this morning that there were no videos I apologise on mine and her behalf if this is wrong.
I had forgotten the point about images on Dropbox - however, these images were not available so couldn't be used in the prosecution.
I disagree that I was attempting to excuse the man, I clearly stated that none of the points I listed could in any way absolve him of the crime. All I was saying was that the perception of leniency held by many people is probably wrong and that the magistrate (who has all the facts of the case) is probably right in his judgement.

 

The problem is that Mr Edwards has been convicted "only" for 41 images and a video. Many convicted of similar offences have 30-50 times as many images. Our old "friend" on here had 1300+ on his 3rd conviction.

Does Mr Edwards deserve punishment? - absolutely. Does Mr Edwards deserve to be punished for a first offence to the same extent as Mr Corke for his third offence (12 months in 2011)? - probably not.

So where do we put Mr Edwards on the punishment scale? - He lost a job worth more than most of us will ever earn, and will never work again in his chosen field (he probably doesn't need to either but that is a separate argument). His reputation is in ruins and he was in the public eye enough so that he will likely get abuse from the public for the rest of his life. As a comparison with the other sentence, it seems about right in proportion - although that could be argued to be too lenient for a 3rd offence.

We could argue that anyone with this content should be locked away forever, but is that proportionate when most murderers get fixed term sentences? So that isn't realistically going to fly. So what is the appropriate sentence for him in this case? There are strong arguments that a suspended sentence is more fitting than a custodial, and vice versa. But if we want the sentencing guidelines increased, we need to pressure our MPs to change the laws that apply.

 

Increasing sentence terms within the guidelines wouldn't necessarily have changed the outcome. If it's determined that the custody threshold has been passed then the bench has to step back and determine whether any direct alternatives to immediate custody would be appropriate, and that would largely be driven by the contents of a pre-sentencing report prepared by probation. Usually the alternatives would take the form of a community order, but financial penalties and suspended sentences also come into consideration. Given such, the number of times I've actually been involved in imposing immediate custody is relatively low, because the sentencing guidelines mandate that it's the sanction of last resort.

I can't comment on the specifics of this case, or the appropriateness of the outcome, as I know as much about it as anyone else reading the reports, but the outcome doesn't entirely surprise me, given what I know about the processes that need to have been followed.

 

Does the punishment fit the crime. Something we debated in another thread of late. If we compare some custodial sentences vs others I guess the question would be about the differences and of course the interpretation of the laws and sentences vs are these laws and sentences correct in the first place. Irrespective of that, I would have expected that being convicted of these offences there would have been some time served. Maybe just a crime reference number will suffice next time.

 

41 indecent images of kids and bloke gets a suspended sentence. Wow definitely should have been jail for him.

 

Plenty of prison places he could have had. I expected him to be locked up because its just worse than say people making social media posts during the riots who have been.

 

And we need to build a sht load of prisons....

 

Seriously concerning views from some on here, nonce apologists? The guy paid for images, he is a paedophile that will not serve a single day of prison but still gets his BBC pension. Sickening.

Don't know what's worse advocates of nonces or advocates of assassination....... at least you're all 'Labour' through and through though.

 

I cant believe there is a discussion on here about what his sentence should be and that he "only" had a small number of pics so he should get less time. One pic is more than enough. Every picture he got was a child being abused, every picture he got was a life being destroyed. If you view this sort of material you are just as bad as the person doing the abuse.
My partner works with young adults who have been in care. Every now and then she tells me about the things, her way of venting and unloading when she has had a bad day, obviously she doesn't say names or anything. But one thing she told me always sticks with me about a young woman who was abused all her life to the point she was dependant on her abusive boyfriend who held her in a room and kept her high whilst pimping her out. Now this young girl was identified by the FBI through photos on a hardrive of a man they arrested in the US. This man paid for these photos just like huw did, she was 12 in these photos and look how that shaped her life. To the person who is comparing the crimes to folk sharing stuff in the riots, I know who I would prefer on the streets.

 

I think the key section of the judgement [as reported by the BBC] is as follows:

He said 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.

The consequences of this conviction and sentence for Edwards will be beyond what they might be for an ordinary offender. The two year suspended sentence and seven-year sex offenders' registration leave his huge earning capacity effectively cancelled and his reputation in tatters. He was probably on track for honors before this case - maybe even a knighthood? It's a very public and humiliating downfall.

 

All I can add to this "debate" is that I'm glad sentencing is up to judges and not the average BBS poster (including myself).

 

I agree with you mate, the only thing I can add is that they should have hit him in the pocket, his unearned salary while suspended at least and maybe some of that huge BBC pension might help out the NHS....

 

I agree with that. There is a wide area of discretion in terms of these offences, with grades of images playing in to the decision, as well as the usual assessments of culpability and harm. It's a minefield. But it is always open to a judge or bench to moderate sentences down from the recommendation if they find sufficient mitigating factors.

 

I think that would have to be the subject of separate (civil) proceedings. A suspended sentence is technically a custodial sentence, whereas a fine is a lower order of punishment. However, it sounds as though the BBC are already into his ribs over that.