The reasons Huw Edwards was spared jail despite accessing indecent images of children

Your support helps us to tell the story

Support Now

Find out moreClose

As your White House correspondent, I ask the tough questions and seek the answers that matter.

Your support enables me to be in the room, pressing for transparency and accountability. Without your contributions, we wouldn't have the resources to challenge those in power.

Your donation makes it possible for us to keep doing this important work, keeping you informed every step of the way to the November election

Andrew Feinberg

White House Correspondent

Disgraced former BBC presenter Huw Edwards has been spared jail after admitting accessing indecent images of children as young as seven.

The 63-year-old previously admitted three charges of “making” indecent photographs after he was sent 41 illegal images by now-convicted paedophile Alex Williams over WhatsApp.

At Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Monday, Edwards held his hands together and leaned forward throughout his sentencing hearing as he was handed six months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years.

Chief Magistrate, district judge Paul Goldspring, told the former BBC News at Ten anchor that his “long-earned reputation is in tatters” and that reputational and financial damage was the “natural consequence of your behaviour which you brought upon yourself”.

The BBC said Edwards had “betrayed not just the BBC, but audiences who put their trust in him” – adding that the corporation was “appalled by his crimes”.

Below, we take a look at the reasons why Edwards avoided prison time.

The chief magistrate went through the mitigating factors he was taking into account when sentencing Edwards.

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

Defence barrister Philip Evans KC earlier told Monday’s hearing Edwards “recognises that he has betrayed the priceless trust and faith of so many people”, adding he is “truly sorry” for how he had “damaged his family and his loved ones” and for committing the offences.

If a court finds an offender to be genuinely remorseful for their crimes, this may lead to a reduction in sentence.

As mentioned, Edwards’s mental health was among the mitigating factors taken into account by the judge when sentencing the former broadcaster.

A psychiatrist’s report, referenced by the chief magistrate in his sentencing remarks, 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.

A separate report conducted by a psychosexual therapist said: “The feelings of being desirable and unseen alongside Mr Edwards’s unresolved sexual orientation created a perfect storm where he engaged in sexual infidelities and became vulnerable to people blackmailing him.”

Concerns over Edwards’s mental health have been raised throughout his case.

If a court finds an offender was suffering from mental health issues at the time of their offence, then culpability may be reduced, according to the Sentencing Council’s guidelines.

The judge believed Edwards presented no danger to the public.

He 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.”

The sentencing judge highlighted Edwards’s “previous good character” in his sentencing remarks, with the former broadcaster holding no previous convictions.

The chief magistrate said: “Perhaps it does not need saying but you are of previous good character.”

The judge said he accepts Edwards had been of “exemplary” good character “having enjoyed a very successful career in the media”.

“It’s obvious that until now you were very highly regarded by the public,” he continued, adding that Edwards was “perhaps the most recognised newsreader-journalist”.

“It is not an exaggeration to say your long-earned reputation is in tatters,” the judge said.

According to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), “making” an indecent image has been broadly interpreted by the courts, with the law in this area described as confusing.

It can range from opening an attachment to an email containing an image, to accessing pornographic websites in which indecent photographs of children appear by way of an automatic “pop-up” mechanism.

In the case of Edwards, he received the illegal images as part of a WhatsApp conversation, so the offence was possessing the images, rather than creating or recording them.

Edwards entered a guilty plea at the earliest opportunity, which automatically reduces his sentence by a third.

The former newsreader admitted three charges of “making” indecent photographs at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 31 July.

According to the Sentencing Council guidelines, any custodial sentence that is of a length between 14 days and two years can be suspended.

The court may suspend the sentence for between six months and two years.

Edwards’s sentence of six months imprisonment was suspended for two years by the judge on Monday.