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 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.
Westminster Magistrates’ Court heard Edwards told Williams “go on” when asked if he wanted “naughty pics and vids” of somebody described as “yng (sic)”.
Chief Magistrate, district judge Paul Goldspring, said 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”.
The court also heard Edwards paid Williams hundreds of pounds after he sent him pornographic images, but his defence barrister Philip Evans KC said the broadcaster did not make payments to Williams in order to receive indecent images of children.
The prosecution said Williams asked Edwards for a “Christmas gift after all the hot videos”.
Prosecutor Ian Hope said: “Alex Williams says he wants some Air Force 1 trainers that cost around £100, and Mr Edwards offers to send him £200.”
Of the indecent images he received, the estimated age of most of the children was between 13 and 15, but one was aged between seven and nine.
Mr Evans said Edwards “recognises that he has betrayed the priceless trust and faith of so many people”, adding that he is “truly sorry” for how he had “damaged his family and his loved ones” and for committing the offences.
Sentencing Edwards, Chief Magistrate Paul Goldspring told the broadcaster: “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.
He also told Edwards he would be subject to 25 rehabilitation sessions and be placed on the sex offender treatment programme for 40 days.
Edwards was also ordered to pay £3,000 in prosecution costs and was told he would be put on the sex offenders’ register for seven years.
The judge continued: “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.”
He declined to make a sexual harm prevention order against Edwards.
The final indecent image was sent in August 2021, a category A film featuring a young boy, with convicted paedophile Williams telling the newsreader the child was “quite young looking” and that he had more images which were illegal.
Addressing the exchange while opening the case to the court, Mr Hope said: “Alex Williams says he has some ‘naughty pics and vids unsure if you’d like’. Mr Edwards tells him to ‘go on’ and Alex Williams states ‘yng (sic)’.
“Mr Edwards again tells him to ‘go on’ and Alex Williams sends a category A moving image showing a male child aged around seven to nine…”
“Mr Edwards inquires where the video is from and Alex Williams says an image sharing group on another social media platform which they have both also used, Telegram.
“Alex Williams says the subject is ‘quite yng looking’ to which Mr Edwards responds it ‘can be deceptive’ and asks if he has ‘any more?’”
Mr Evans told the court: “The defendant has no memory of actually viewing any particular image.”
The defence KC also said Edwards “did not gain any gratification” from indecent images.
Overall, the charges cover a period between December 2020 and August 2021.
Speaking about the money Edwards had sent to Williams, Mr Hope said: “It is clear from the face of the WhatsApp chat recovered that a deal of the chat between Alex Williams and Mr Edwards was sexual in nature.
“It is also clear that Mr Edwards was paying not insignificant sums of money – low hundreds of pounds on an occasional basis – to Alex Williams which Mr Williams directly asked for on several occasions, as gifts or presents, apparently off the back of sending pornographic images to Mr Edwards, about which images they chatted.
“Alex Williams has stated that the money was more generally to support him at university and amounted to around £1,000 to £1,500.”
A psychiatrist’s report, referenced by the judge 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’ unresolved sexual orientation created a perfect storm where he engaged in sexual infidelities and became vulnerable to people blackmailing him.”
Following his guilty pleas, the BBC admitted it was informed that the former TV presenter had been arrested in November, but continued to employ him for around five months until he left on medical advice.
It has asked Edwards to repay the £200,000 salary he has received since his arrest.
BBC director-general Tim Davie said the money should be returned and that the corporation will “explore” the legal process if Edwards refuses.
The relevant images in Edwards’ case range from the most serious category, known as category A, to the least serious, known as category C.
They include seven category A images, 12 category B images and 22 category C images.
The Sentencing Council, a public body sponsored by the Ministry of Justice, defines category A images as those involving penetrative sexual activity, sexual activity with an animal, or sadism.
Category B images are those involving non-penetrative sexual activity, while category C images are indecent images that do not fall into A or B.
According to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), “making” an indecent image has been broadly interpreted by the courts.
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.
During his four decades at the corporation, Edwards was among the broadcasting teams leading coverage of historic events including the late Queen’s funeral in 2022 and most recently the coronation of the King in May 2023.
Edwards also announced the late Queen’s death on the BBC in September 2022.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said he was “shocked and appalled” by the case, adding that Edwards’ sentence was “for the court to decide, having looked at all the available evidence”.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article