Huw Edwards sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment, suspended for ...

Introduction

On 16 September 2024, Huw Edwards appeared before Westminster Magistrates’ Court to face sentence for three counts of making indecent images of children. He had pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing in July 2024. This article outlines the various steps that the Chief Magistrate, District Judge Paul Goldspring, will have considered before arriving at the ultimate sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 24 months.

Making Indecent Images

‘Making’ indecent images has been widely defined by the Courts. Broadly, it means “to cause to exist, to produce by action, to bring about” indecent images (R v Bowden [2000] 1 Cr.App. R. 438).  It can include such actions as actively downloading an image, opening an email attachment, or even accessing a website where an indecent image ‘pops up.’

Mr Edwards had been sent a number of images via the messaging platform WhatsApp by another individual. It was not alleged that he was responsible for taking the images himself (ie. that he had personally taken photographs or videos on a device) nor that he had distributed the pictures (ie. sent them) to anyone else. That, of course, does not mean that the offences were not serious.

Sentencing Guidelines

The Sentencing Council has produced sentencing guidelines for Courts to follow when sentencing for these types of offences. In Mr Edwards’ case, the offence of ‘making’ would have been treated as ‘possessing’ for the purposes of the sentencing guidelines, as the guidelines state that ‘making an image by simple downloading should be treated as possession for the purposes of sentencing.’ 

Mr Edwards was found to be in possession of 41 indecent images:  7 category A images, 12 category B images and 22 category C images.

Possession of category A images was the most serious of the offences committed by Mr Edwards. The ‘starting point’ (before taking aggravating and mitigating factors into consideration – explained below) for possession of Category A images is 1 year in custody. This is the starting point a Court will take before giving an offender ‘credit’ for pleading guilty. If a person pleads guilty at the earliest opportunity, as Mr Edwards did, they are entitled to a reduction of one third for their guilty plea.

The range for the offence (the Court will move up and down within this range, considering aggravating and mitigating features) is 26 weeks’ to 3 years’ custody.

A Court must consider ‘totality.’ This means that when a number of different offences of a similar nature are faced, the Court will usually impose one sentence that covers the range of offending behaviour, rather than a separate sentence for each individual offence (this is also outlined in the sentencing guidelines).

Aggravating and Mitigating Features

Once the Court has determined the starting point, it must consider aggravating and mitigating features. Simply put, aggravating features will take the starting point higher within the range and mitigating features will take the starting point lower within the range. It is a balancing exercise. The most common aggravating and mitigating features are outlined in the guidelines.

In terms of aggravating features, some of the images sent to Mr Edwards were moving images (ie. videos or clips with movement, as opposed to a still image).

In Mr Edward’s case, there were a number of mitigating features. He was of ‘good character’ meaning that he has no criminal record. It has been widely reported, and indeed was accepted by the Chief Magistrate, that he was suffering with his mental health at the time of the offending. It was also accepted that he had shown remorse for his actions and had taken steps to stop further images being sent to him by the other individual.

Suspended Sentence

It is important to note that a custodial sentence does not necessarily mean an immediate sentence of imprisonment. Any custodial sentence that is at least 14 days but less than 2 years long can be suspended. This means that an offender may face prison if they do not comply with the terms of their suspended sentence or if they commit further offences. A suspended sentence has two parts: the custodial sentence and the operational period (the length of time the order lasts for).

Mr Edwards was sentenced to a custodial sentence of 6 months with an operational period of 24 months. If Mr Edwards breaches any of the requirements attached to his order, or if he commits any further offences within the next 24 months, his case will be brought back before the Court.  In most cases, if an offender breaches their order or commits further offences, the custodial part of the sentence will be ‘activated’ and Mr Edwards will face time in prison.

The Sentencing Council has also produced guidelines to help a Court determine whether someone must serve their sentence in prison or whether they can serve their sentence in the community (effectively with the prospect of prison looming over them should they not comply). There are three factors that indicate when it would not be appropriate to suspend a sentence, and three factors that indicate when it will be appropriate to suspend a sentence. These will have been considered and weighed up by the Court.

Suspended sentences are very common.

Probation Report

Mr Edwards pleaded guilty some time ago, and in the time between then and the sentencing hearing a report was produced by the Probation Service. The Probation Service supervises offenders in the community. A Pre-Sentence Report is a very important tool for the sentencing judge, and forms an important part of the Judge’s sentencing considerations.  The Pre-Sentence Report will have advised the Court on any ‘conditions’ (eg. unpaid work) that could be imposed upon a sentence in the community if the Court was to consider passing such a sentence.

Sex Offender Notification Requirements

Mr Edwards was also placed on the Sex Offenders Register for a period of 7 years. This is a period of time dictated by law. As Mr Edwards received a custodial sentence of ‘6 months or less,’ the law provides that the relevant notification period is one of 7 years.

The Sentence

Taking all of these various factors into consideration, the Court arrived at a sentence of 6 months’ custody suspended for 24 months. This will have included a balancing of the aggravating and mitigating features and a reduction in sentence for his early plea of guilty. It will also have included balancing the factors for and against the custodial sentence being suspended.

The sentence imposed therefore followed a structured process that would have been followed regardless of the person appearing before the Court. Mr Edwards fared no better and no worse in this sentencing exercise than he would have done were he not a well-known news presenter. The sentence imposed was within the guidelines for the offence and followed the stages that would have been followed for any other individual.