Huw! Edwards!

Suspended sentence – what a joke our legal system is.

Unless he has some serious bargaining info??

Maybe it’s just me, but having Cat A > 0, is as wrong as it gets. There’s no sliding scale here

Not just you but unfortunately the realities of the criminal justice system don’t agree. I’ve seen some **** horrors with personal libraries of cat A get off with suspended sentences so seven was never going to get him inside.

I still steadfastly believe the first one is far FAR worse. Would anyone like to disagree?

Kilo wasn’t implying that it isn’t when challenging your attempt to trivialise the second.

This country ffs

Sexual exploitation of kids – slap on the wrist.

Nasty words on Facebook – off to prison you go

as above, you need to try not to go all Daily Mail about this – it’s not just “messages on Facebook” – inciting riot/racial hatred etc via a global platform has the potentially to be massively damaging so rightfully is regarded as extremely serious IMO – imagine if a mob had burned down a hotel for example & killed 20 people! Would be horrendous.

That said, I think this is also serious and think he’s gotten off very lightly – some of the early comments on the first few pages of this thread have not aged well have they!!

Don’t really want to get into “wrongun top trumps” though over which is “worse” as they are both despicable obviously.

Call me old fashioned, I still steadfastly believe the first one is far FAR worse. Would anyone like to disagree?

That doesn’t mean the second is acceptable before you start

Yes, and there will be a sliding scale of sentences for both. Punishment will reflect what is in the sentencing guidelines.

Explanation by a legal expert on the world at one seemed very balanced (I’m sure some will say BBC bias…!), and said this was in keeping with other sentences with no special treatment. He also said our legal system doesn’t really allow you to compare this sentence to that for riot or sitting on a motorway.

This will add fuel to the fire of bastards like Farage and Tice who want to discredit and undermine the BBC. Notwithstanding that what he has done is very wrong indeed.

I think the perception of an easy ride for a Beeb anchorman and ‘celeb’ will be hard to shake off.

Explanation by a legal expert on the world at one seemed very balanced (I’m sure some will say BBC bias…!), and said this was in keeping with other sentences with no special treatment. He also said our legal system doesn’t really allow you to compare this sentence to that for riot or sitting on a motorway.

away with you sensible response, only statements including hanging or castration is allowed on this stuff!

::insert laughing crying emoji::

I haven’t followed in detail but was his crime here that he was sent pictures and asked the sender to stop sending them? What else was he convicted of?

The Secret Barrister is a good person to follow on Twitter – the books are good too. They give an insight into how the sentencing was arrived at.

https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1835673864614887851

I recall an episode of 24 hours in police custody which dealt with a bloke who had hundreds (or thousands?) of indecent images including the most serious category, which ultimately resulted in a suspended sentence. So, I wasn’t surprised today but I suspect a lot of the public will be.

As above, the discussion on the world at one earlier was balanced and informative.

I’m sure he’d of felt more comfortable in a segregated part of a prison than walking down the street as a convicted child sex offender in possession of a face recognisable to most of the country. He’s effectively under house arrest for life. He’s not heading to the pub to celebrate with his legal team

And in particular the 2nd tweet in that thread:

“The first point to note is that “making” is misleading – the offence was possessing them on a computer, rather than creating or recording the images. The law is grossly confusing in this area.”

If someone sends you kiddie porn you *are* guilty of an offence the second you open up the image. You may get away with it if you’re low profile and/or have some really good excuses (like, you had no idea what was sent, etc). But you have broken the law.

I was listening to R2 earlier and they had someone, sorry I cant remember who, some legal type person, and it sounded quite sensible..

They basically said that he was punished by the court according to the guidelines for that type of offence… adding that there may well be speculation from all sides that it might be too hard or too soft, but courts/judges generally need a very good/exeptional reason for handing out punishment outwith the guidelines.

So there may well be an argument for the guidlines to be adjusted in general, but that is a seperate argument from the case in point.

I will say I don’t know much about the Huw Edwards case, other than headlines, so I’m not expressing an opinon on this case, either way, just opinion on the legal position with regards to sentencing guidelines.

So there may well be an argument for the guidlines to be adjusted in general, but that is a seperate argument from the case in point.

Well put.

If someone sends you kiddie porn you *are* guilty of an offence the second you open up the image. You may get away with it if you’re low profile and/or have some really good excuses (like, you had no idea what was sent, etc). But you have broken the law.

I think this is the crux of the issue… for example someone randomly puts a GIF of a dude shagging a goat into a ‘lads banter’ whattsapp chat group… am I then guitly of possessing bestiality porn or whatever? Bit harsh, no?

for example someone randomly puts a GIF of a dude shagging a goat into a ‘lads banter’ whattsapp chat group… am I then guitly of possessing bestiality porn or whatever? Bit harsh, no?

I think it would depend more on the context in which is was sent/received.

‘Lads banter’ isn’t going to attract  a harsher penalty than if it was a group or individual into that kind of thing.

But then look at some of the convictions of ‘lads banter’ when police have shared pics of a deceased in a whats app group. Loss of job, pension and even imprisonment. And with the police, given the job they do and the sights some of them have seen, a very black humour can be prevalent.

But then look at some of the convictions of ‘lads banter’ when police have shared pics of a deceased in a whats app group. Loss of job, pension and even imprisonment. And with the police, given the job they do and the sights some of them have seen, a very black humour can be prevalent.

Those were the officers who took the pictures then shared them, the amount of rules they broke exceeded the criteria by a long way.

As for Huw Edwards, he has been sentenced, i thought the publicity part might have got him a custodial, but at this time, due to prison spaces, the level of his crime, pleading guilty, etc, etc, the judge has passed sentence and it is comparable with pretty much every local one i’ve seen over the last few years, add to that his entire reputation is gone, his job is gone, he is a pariah and the rest, and it’s the public sentence that’ll do him in, his entire remaining life will be high stress wherever and whatever he does.

“… He’s effectively under house arrest for life. He’s not heading to the pub to celebrate with his legal team…”

No. But he could be straight back off to his bedroom to surf the bad part of the Internet with stronger encription this time.

This BBC article gives a good insight into the nature of his offending and how his sentence was arrived at.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn033p4d82xo

He also said our legal system doesn’t really allow you to compare this sentence to that for riot or sitting on a motorway.

From the perspective of them being different crimes with different sentencing guidelines, sure. But I note a dispiriting tendency in our justice system to punish physical crimes against people less seriously than crimes against property.

No. But he could be straight back off to his bedroom to surf the bad part of the Internet with stronger encription this time.

Not really, depending on his restrictions. He might be barred from use of electronic devices or have to use ones with no access. There could also be software installed. The OMU (offender management unit) officers who will “visit” will have the right to check his devices as part of his being on the SOR. Any doubts will see devices impounded and checked. The OMU officers have training in checking devices although not the forensic investigation that the specialists have.

But I note a dispiriting tendency in our justice system to punish physical crimes against people less seriously than crimes against property.

That’s pretty much the foundation of most legal systems, property has value, people (for the most part) do not.

Standard sentence according to guidelines. Some mitigation on the grounds of mental health, and a third off for pleading guilty at the very earliest opportunity. The magistrate’s judgment is now posted on the BBC website as posted above. Seven years on the sex offenders register and a lifetime of public shame is the real punishment here.

I knew someone who did something similar in the days before WhatsApp, it was internet chatrooms in those days. they received a year in prison, which they served. The offence was, however, more serious.

Suspended sentence – what a joke our legal system is.

How long do you think he should have spent in the sex offenders wing of the local prison to come out less likely to commit offences?

Unless he has some serious bargaining info??

the fact he was sentenced entirely within the guidelines suggests he didn’t get any special treatment.  

He sounded completely inept at hiding anything and by the sounds of it, was open for blackmail the way he was going. Again, this will play into the sentencing, there was no active IT solutions to hiding or whatever, it just sounds sad and desperate. As said a few times, i back the justice system here, even with it’s many faults at times, i honestly thought the government would press for a custodial here to show power, or push out a statement condemning the judges decision, but neither has happened, thankfully, it starts to get into two tier systems when the public view and political views are part of the sentencing criteria.

Given the nature of the crime, I’m disappointed to read that an early guilty plea leads to a reduction from the maximum possible sentence. Shouldn’t apply in crimes like this in my opinion

it applies in ALL crimes – from murder to speeding.  If you don’t like the idea of a discount of 1/3rd for pleading guilty at an early opportunity – consider it an extra punishment of 50% for not pleading guilty at the start!

Without such “credit” most cases would proceed to trial, because even if you knew you were guilty there’s a chance the crown screw up their case preparation, witnesses appear confused / don’t turn up etc.  Every witness would have the trauma and inconvenience of giving evidence at court every time, which would mean fewer witnesses come forward, and the entire justice system would grind to a halt (even more than now) and then people would be locked up for longer during times when prisons are bursting at the seems and governments are having to use special provisions to alleviate it.  You would have nothing to loose by testing the crown case.  We have one of the biggest prison populations in Europe, and high reoffending rates.

I’ve seen cases in the past where the accused have pled not guilty up until the morning of the court appearance, and still got the discount, that was in a case of joyriding, theft of a motor vehicle and other charges where the defendants had to be cut out of the wreck by the fire brigade!

i honestly thought the government would press for a custodial here to show power, or push out a statement condemning the judges decision,

This would be why we have a reasonably independent judiciary and now have a government that understands what that means.

For those not on Twitter, I’ve unrolled the Secret Barrister thread.  It’s worth a read.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1835673864614887851.html

They’ve updated it now with a link to the paedo- er, pdf-file containing the court’s sentencing notes.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/EDWARDS-SENTENCE-REMARKS-FINAL.pdf

I’ve seen cases in the past where the accused have pled not guilty up until the morning of the court appearance, and still got the discount, that was in a case of joyriding, theft of a motor vehicle and other charges where the defendants had to be cut out of the wreck by the fire brigade!

The “expectation” is you get 1/3rd off for guilty at first appearance.  1/4 off for guilty at a case management hearing.  About 1/10th off for pleading on the day of the trial.  The latter still avoiding the witnesses having to actually go through the experience of giving evidence, and saving court time.

It was a 6 month sentence suspended. 6 months is quite a low figure in sentencing, so the court clearly took this at the low end of offending.

This area is full of difficult areas, I work with and assess risk of people convicted of these offending and a lot of it doesn’t sit well on many levels. Firstly the number of images or their content isn’t indicative of an increased risk of further offending. In fact I’ve been at a number of events where renowned and highly educated people argue that the risk of reconviction for people convicted of posessing CSAM is so low that we shouldn’t prosecute them full stop. the latest, accredited research focused risk assessments for technology driven offending has meant we’re now screening people out of treatment because to do so would increase their risk. This is no way to negate any victim or their experiences, in my offices victims are considered at every stage.
Added to the mix is that the vast majority of people who use these images are children and a good proportion of the images online are self generated and the whole thing becomes a nightmare. As with most of these things the focus should be education of young people and holding tech companies to account

The constant intermingling of facts related to Edwards’ mental health and sexuality in so many articles, alongside him having a lot of indecent underage imagery, is not something that sits comfortably with me.

I know it’s a defence argument but in my eyes it is totally irrelevant, and can subconsciously link these 3 things in certain people’s perception of who a “predator” is.

Two of these things are very very normal, one is completely abnormal and depraved.