What is a suspended sentence and why was Huw Edwards given one?
Sir Keir Starmer said it was “for the court to decide” how to punish disgraced former BBC presenter Huw Edwards, who walked free on Monday with a suspended sentence after admitting accessing indecent images of children.
Edwards, 63, had previously admitted three charges of “making” indecent photographs (in this case meaning possessing) after he was sent 41 illegal images by convicted paedophile Alex Williams over WhatsApp between December 2020 and August 2021.
The estimated age of most of the children in the images was between 13 and 15, but one was aged between seven and nine. They include seven of the most serious category A images, 12 category B images and 22 category C images.
Appearing at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Monday, Edwards was handed six months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years.
Asked by reporters during a trip to Rome what he thought of the suspended sentence and whether he'd consider a review, the prime minister, and former director of public prosecutions, said: “As far as the sentence is concerned, I mean, that is for the court to decide, having looked at all the available evidence.
"I’m not going to get into the business of commenting on court sentences. That is a matter for the court. But was I shocked by what I have seen and heard? You bet I was.”
But what exactly is a suspended sentence, and why do we have them?
What is a suspended sentence?
A suspended sentence is served in the community instead of prison, usually with certain conditions the offender has to follow.
For example, they might be ordered to stay away from a certain place, or be told to do unpaid work for the community. If someone breaks their conditions they could be sent to prison.
In Edwards' case, he has been placed on the sex offender treatment programme and must attend 25 rehabilitation sessions. He will also be put on the sex offenders register for seven years, which means he has to tell the police of his whereabouts.
If he fails to follow any of these conditions, he would risk being sent to prison for six months.
Why do we have suspended sentences?
There are three main factors that might persuade a court to suspend a custodial sentence, according to the Sentencing Council’s imposition of community and custodial sentencing guidelines.
Someone might receive a suspended sentence if there is a realistic prospect of rehabilitation; if there is strong personal mitigation; or if immediate custody will result in significant harmful impact upon others.
Three factors suggesting it would be appropriate to send someone straight to prison are if the offender presents a risk/danger to the public; appropriate punishment can only be achieved by immediate custody; or if the offender has a history of poor compliance with court orders.
In Edwards' case, the chief magistrate, district judge Paul Goldspring, went through the mitigating factors he was taking into account.
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. He added that Edwards had been of “exemplary” good character “having enjoyed a very successful career in the media”.
The judge also outlined that the former broadcaster’s remorse was genuine and that his mental health at the time of the offences could have impaired his decision-making. However, he said the financial and reputational damage Edwards suffered after his arrest was “the natural consequence of your behaviour which you brought upon yourself”.
“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,” added the judge, who also declined to make a sexual harm prevention order (SHPO) against Edwards.
The impact of an SHPO can be wide-ranging, according to the Sentencing Council. The guidance states: "An order may, for example, prohibit someone from undertaking certain forms of employment such as acting as a home tutor to children. It may also prohibit the offender from engaging in particular activities on the internet."
Was Edwards' sentence fair?
Edwards avoiding an immediate prison term has attracted criticism of a "two-tier" justice system that benefits people of a certain standing in society – but does that claim stand up to examination?
The judge said he had "carefully considered" the question of whether to impose a custodial sentence and the "factors both for and against suspending" such a punishment.
He said he had reached the conclusion that the focus "should be on rehabilitation and that punishment is not only achieved by way of immediate custody".
The judge added that a suspended sentence strikes the balance between "public protection and rehabilitation".
Posting on X, columnist Sarah Vine (seemingly referencing some convictions during the recent UK-wide riots) said, "you can go to jail for a bad tweet, but if you pay for images of little children having unspeakable things done to them, it’s a suspended sentence."
Meanwhile political commentator and former MEP Patrick O'Flynn wrote: "Some of those only tangentially connected to the riots were given *exemplary* jail terms.
"There has been no exemplary element to the Huw Edwards sentence. Instead absurd mitigations - such as him only getting into Cardiff [University] and not Oxford - have been given weight. Two tier."
However, the prominent anonymous legal blogger, the Secret Barrister, detailed how Edwards' sentence was "entirely expected sentence for offences of this type".
However, the question has been raised as to whether Huw Edwards has received “special” or “two tier” treatment.
The answer is unequivocally “No”.
As somebody who has prosecuted and defended more of these cases than I can recall, this is the very outcome I would have expected.— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) September 16, 2024
In a thread on X, the lawyer outlined that while the starting point for possessing category A images (such as those in the Edwards case) is one year's custody, with a range from 26 weeks to 3 years, there are a list of factors which can "move that starting point up or down within the range", and separate guidelines for sentencing offenders with mental disorders.
"Because he pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, Edwards was entitled to one third off his sentence," the barrister continued. "It seems that the judge took a starting point of 12 months, reduced to nine months for mitigation, and reduced by a further third for guilty plea, to arrive at six months."
As for why those six months were suspended, the blogger pointed to the Sentencing Council’s guidelines, suggesting that the Probation Service would have deemed Edwards as having a "low risk of reoffending".
They added: "The question has been raised as to whether Huw Edwards has received 'special' or 'two tier' treatment. The answer is unequivocally 'No'. As somebody who has prosecuted and defended more of these cases than I can recall, this is the very outcome I would have expected."
Read more
