Why Huw Edwards is likely to avoid prison, according to lawyers

Huw Edwards is likely to avoid prison after being convicted of child pornography, legal experts said I, before the former BBC presenter’s verdict on Monday.

The former newsreader is due to be sentenced tomorrow at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, where he pleaded guilty in July to three counts of producing indecent images of children.

The 62-year-old veteran radio presenter admitted having 41 illegal images on WhatsApp – including seven of the most serious Category A – sent to him by convicted paedophile Alex Williams.

The estimated age of the children in most of the Category A images is 13 to 15 years, although two of the moving images show a child aged approximately seven to nine years.

Following an investigation by South Wales Police, Williams, 25, pleaded guilty to seven counts of possessing and distributing indecent images. He was sentenced in March to 12 months in prison, suspended for two years.

Suspended sentences are served in the community, but if Williams commits an offence within that two-year period, he will be immediately sent to prison for 12 months.

Criminal defense attorney Joseph Kotrie-Monson, principal of the Mary Monson Law Firm, said I It is “incredibly unlikely” that Edwards will have to go to prison, as judges usually suspend sentences if the defendant has no relevant previous convictions.

Mr Kotrie-Monson, whose firm has handled around 600 cases involving indecent images, said: “It is still incredibly unlikely that he [Edwards] receive any prison sentence because he is a first-time offender.”

The fact that Edwards entered an early guilty plea will also be taken into account by the judge, which further reduces the likelihood of a prison sentence, Kotrie-Monson added. He has defended clients charged in the Rotherham sex scandal and regularly advises clients suspected of downloading or sharing offensive or extreme material.

Mr Kotrie-Monson said he expected Edwards to receive a suspended sentence and a sexual violence prevention order prohibiting him from engaging in certain activities and behaviour, such as accessing the internet, except in a manner supervised by police officers.

At the time of his guilty plea, he was already on the sex offenders’ register, the defence lawyer added, and was therefore obliged to inform the police if he travelled abroad or changed his address.

Siobhain Egan, non-executive director of criminal law firm Lewis Nedas, also said the likelihood of Edwards being sent straight to prison was slim.

“Am I expecting him? [Edwards] go to prison? No, I don’t want that,” she said.

“He pleaded guilty early on and obviously suffers from serious mental health problems – there is a lot of history.”

In July, Westminster Magistrates Court heard that the ex-News at ten The moderator was involved in a WhatsApp chat with Williams between December 2020 and August 2021.

Police began investigating Edwards after a phone seized by officers as part of their initial investigation into Williams revealed the broadcaster’s participation in a WhatsApp conversation.

Williams sent him 377 sexual images, including 41 indecent images of children.

Read more

Ms Egan, who represents people accused of sex offences, said Williams’ conviction would have no impact on the judge’s decision regarding Edwards.

“The two men’s sentences will be assessed individually in accordance with the sentencing guidelines,” she said. “The judge will make two completely independent judgments.”

“The men had different roles, they are different ages, with different circumstances and mitigations. I do not expect Edwards to go to prison.”

Mr Kotrie-Monson said that while Edwards was technically convicted of “creating” indecent images, the meaning of the offence should not be taken literally.

“Making is not making, it’s actually looking at,” he said. “It’s not creating. But when it comes to Category A images, and he has pleaded guilty, the starting point before considering mitigation measures and an early admission of guilt is a prison sentence of one year.”

“Usually people look for [images]and just because you didn’t ask for it doesn’t mean you couldn’t have expected it to arrive,” he added.

“And once you keep it, you are guilty of the crime. If you happen to come across it and delete it immediately, that is a defense. He [Edwards] not. And that means he was very happy about it.”

Kotrie-Monson said it was rare for a one-year prison sentence to be imposed by a magistrates’ court rather than a crown court, which could give the impression that Edwards was receiving preferential treatment as a celebrity.

“Justices of the peace almost always decline jurisdiction because their maximum sentence for a single incident, a single offense, is only six months,” he said.

“Perhaps the lawyers in this situation were able to bring the case before the district court because there were clues behind closed doors.

“This is very unusual. We have handled hundreds of cases involving offensive images and have only seen this a few times. And by that I mean probably less than five times.”

He added: “Even if there is good reason for the judge to consider that this is a matter for the district court, it creates the impression of unequal treatment based on his status.

“That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the wrong place for the hearing, but it’s not an example of the public being able to experience equal justice.”