Huw Edwards handed suspended sentenced over indecent images

The 63-year-old beforehand admitted three prices of “making” indecent images after he was despatched 41 unlawful photographs by convicted paedophile Alex Williams over WhatsApp.

Seven of the indecent photographs shared with Edwards by Williams have been of probably the most critical sort.

Of these photographs, the estimated age of many of the youngsters was between 13 and 15, however one was aged between seven and 9.

The decide sentencing Edwards mentioned the previous broadcaster’s “long-earned fame is in tatters”.

(Picture: Aaron Chown)

Chief Justice of the Peace, district decide Paul Goldspring, mentioned: “Maybe it doesn’t want saying however you’re of earlier good character.

“It isn’t an exaggeration to say your long-earned fame is in tatters,” the decide mentioned.

Edwards was given a six month jail sentence, suspended for 2 years with a requirement to finish a intercourse offender programme.

Opening the case in opposition to Edwards at Westminster Magistrates’ Courtroom, prosecutor Ian Hope mentioned: “It’s 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.

“Additionally it is clear that Mr Edwards was paying not insignificant sums of cash – low a whole bunch of kilos on an occasional foundation – to Alex Williams which Mr Williams immediately requested for on a number of events, as items or presents, apparently off the again of sending pornographic photographs to Mr Edwards, about which photographs they chatted.

“Alex Williams has said that the cash was extra typically to help him at college and amounted to round £1,000 to £1,500.”

The Courtroom was advised Edwards didn’t reply after Williams despatched him a sexual video of youngsters aged round seven to 9 and 11 to 13.

Prosecutor Ian Hope mentioned: “On February 10, 2021, a class A video was despatched which is notable as a result of the age of one of many youngsters concerned was considerably youthful than in the remainder of the pictures despatched – it confirmed a number of acts of penetration between two youngsters aged round seven to 9 and 11 to 13 respectively.

“There was no direct response from Mr Edwards to this video, past it being marked as ‘learn’.

“Every week later… quite a lot of attachments have been despatched which included two class B movies and 4 class C nonetheless photographs comprising indecent photographs of youngsters.

“On February 19 2021, Alex Williams requested ‘is the stuff I’m sending too younger for you?’

“The following response from Mr Edwards is dated February 22 2021 saying ‘don’t ship underage’.”

Prosecutor Ian Hope continued: “In a later trade on August 11 2021, Alex Williams says he has some ‘naughty pics and vids not sure in the event you’d like’. Mr Edwards tells him to ‘go on’ and Alex Williams states ‘yng (sic)’.

“Mr Edwards once more tells him to ‘go on’ and Alex Williams sends a class A shifting picture exhibiting a male little one aged round 7 to 9…”

“Mr Edwards enquires the place the video is from and Alex Williams says an image-sharing group on one other social media platform which they’ve each additionally used, Telegram.

“Alex Williams says the topic is ‘fairly yng wanting’ to which Mr Edwards responds it ‘will be misleading’ and asks if he has ‘any extra?’

“Alex Williams says he has however he isn’t positive if Mr Edwards would love them as they’re unlawful.

“Mr Edwards says ‘Ah OK don’t’ and the trade instantly following considerations a collection of photographs which Alex Williams describes as ‘seems to be younger don’t he however he’s deffo 19.’

Philip Evans KC, defending, mentioned Huw Edwards didn’t make funds to Alex Williams with a view to obtain indecent photographs of youngsters.

Mr Evans advised the courtroom: “Mr Edwards didn’t make funds to ensure that photographs to be despatched to him, and he definitely didn’t make funds so that indecent photographs can be despatched to him.

“Mr Edwards positively advised Mr Williams to not ship photographs of people that have been underage.”

He added: “He didn’t retailer any of these photographs on any machine.

“He didn’t use them for any private gratification and he didn’t achieve any gratification from these indecent photographs.

“He didn’t ship them to anybody else onwardly and he has by no means sought related photographs earlier than from any supply, and he has not sought related photographs from some other supply since.”

Mr Evans mentioned Edwards was “really sorry” for a way he has “broken his household and his family members”, and for committing the offences.

He advised the courtroom: “You’ll have appreciated sir that the press has been extraordinary to the extent that this matter has been reported and Mr Edwards via me needs to apologise to the courtroom. He needs the courtroom, via me, to know the way profoundly sorry he’s. He recognises the repugnant nature of such indecent photographs and the damage that’s accomplished to those that seem in such photographs.

“For his half in that he apologises sincerely and he makes it clear that he has the utmost remorse and he recognises that he has betrayed the priceless belief and religion of so many individuals.

“He is aware of he has damage and he has broken his household and his family members round him and for all of this stuff he’s really sorry and he’s really sorry that he has dedicated these offences.”

The related photographs in Edwards’ case vary from probably the most critical class, referred to as class A, to the least critical, referred to as class C.

They embrace seven class A photographs, 12 class B photographs and 22 class C photographs.

The Sentencing Council, a public physique sponsored by the Ministry of Justice, defines class A photographs as these involving penetrative sexual exercise, sexual exercise with an animal, or sadism.

Class B photographs are these involving non-penetrative sexual exercise, whereas class C photographs are indecent photographs that don’t fall into A or B.

In response to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), “making” an indecent picture has been broadly interpreted by the courts.

It might vary from opening an attachment to an e-mail containing a picture, to accessing pornographic web sites by which indecent images of youngsters seem by the use of an automated “pop-up” mechanism.

Within the case of Edwards, he obtained the unlawful photographs as a part of a WhatsApp dialog.