Huw Edwards | Charged with making indecent images of children

Seems like he was texting lots of young men. Feel sorry for his wife.
 
Doracle said:
That didn’t seem to be the case with the Police Chief case referred to above. The Guardian article suggested that the test was “Under the law on possessing indecent images, it was for Williams to prove she had a legitimate reason to have it, or that she had not seen the video and did not have reason to believe it was indecent.”

Assuming that remains the test (the case is a few years old) it does suggest that the only way in which you could be completely safe if you got a clip with a dodgy looking thumbnail would be to go straight down to the police station. Otherwise, if the person who sent it was arrested, you could easily appear on some list.
Click to expand...
The Police officer shared it knowing it was dodgy even of she didn't view it. Her sister shared it to a few people I believe. Hopefully their intent was taken into account but a senior cop really should have known better. That said the law obviously needs adjusting to better account for non-malicious cases and also differentiate between creators of this sort of muck and consumers.
 
Wibble said:
The Police officer shared it knowing it was dodgy even of she didn't view it. Her sister shared it to a few people I believe. Hopefully their intent was taken into account but a senior cop really should have known better. That said the law obviously needs adjusting to better account for non-malicious cases and also differentiate between creators of this sort of muck and consumers.
Click to expand...

No, the Police Chief didn’t share it at all. She just received it.
 
Wibble said:
The Police officer shared it knowing it was dodgy even of she didn't view it. Her sister shared it to a few people I believe. Hopefully their intent was taken into account but a senior cop really should have known better. That said the law obviously needs adjusting to better account for non-malicious cases and also differentiate between creators of this sort of muck and consumers.
Click to expand...

Regarding your last sentence, it does.

Taking and distributing offences are seperate charges and generally taken far more seriously. They are far more likely to land you in jail unless you happen to possess or make literal thousands or be a reoffender.
 
Wibble said:
The Police officer shared it knowing it was dodgy even of she didn't view it. Her sister shared it to a few people I believe. Hopefully their intent was taken into account but a senior cop really should have known better. That said the law obviously needs adjusting to better account for non-malicious cases and also differentiate between creators of this sort of muck and consumers.
Click to expand...

I’ve linked to an Irish case higher up, based on similar interpretation of the law. A woman had a CP video sent to her by someone she didn’t know well. She immediately deleted it and replied saying “why are you sending me child porn”. Subsequently the home she lived in was raided by police and her phone was seized for evidence (she wasn’t the person the police were after) They discovered the video in her whatsapp cache and she got a four month (suspended) prison sentence.
 
It seems that they are using outdated laws as a proxy for the lack of an offence of receiving but not even viewing dodgy files - amd do we even need such a law? Maybe, maybe not.

To avoid cases which seem grossly unfair the law plainly needs to be updated.
 
Can't believe he didn't Vardy his phone into the Atlantic at the first sight of forensic involvement.
 
gormless said:
Regarding your last sentence, it does.

Taking and distributing offences are seperate charges and generally taken far more seriously. They are far more likely to land you in jail unless you happen to possess or make literal thousands or be a reoffender.
Click to expand...
Perhaps what I actually meant was to differentiate between creators, distributors, consumers and others who are being labelled as sex offenders when they are no such thing in any meaningful way. If non-reportig of a crime you witness is to be a crime then specifically write a law to that effect imo.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I’ve linked to an Irish case higher up, based on similar interpretation of the law. A woman had a CP video sent to her by someone she didn’t know well. She immediately deleted it and replied saying “why are you sending me child porn”. Subsequently the home she lived in was raided by police and her phone was seized for evidence (she wasn’t the person the police were after) They discovered the video in her whatsapp cache and she got a four month (suspended) prison sentence.
Click to expand...
That's absolutely mental?
 
Wibble said:
Perhaps what I actually meant was to differentiate between creators, distributors, consumers and others who are being labelled as sex offenders when they are no such thing in any meaningful way. If non-reportig of a crime you witness is to be a crime then specifically write a law to that effect imo.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree with this. The police officer got put on the sex register for 5 years, despite her circumstances being so unusual that when the Police tried to sack her (following the criminal conviction) it was found to be unfair dismissal.

Even if the case against her was correct (that she knew what it was but didn’t report it because she realised it would get her sister in trouble) then it emphasises the problem. The sister herself wanted it reported and the person found - she wasn’t sharing it for dodgy purposes. If the law then prevented a recipient from reporting it because they were worried about getting her into trouble, then it’s having the opposite effect to its intention.

Feels like it needs a rework to reflect modern technology. Not real on topic for Huw Edwards, who it appears didn’t really quibble receipt of the images at all.
 
SilentWitness said:
Some of the details coming out today...
Click to expand...

Seems like he knew exactly what he was getting.

Images and videos clearly labelled as "adolescents" or even with the ages of the kids, and he's asking for more and calling them "amazing".

Lock him up.
 
Edwards is given six months' imprisonment suspended for two years with a requirement to complete a sex offender programme.

Chief magistrate Paul Goldspring tells Edwards he had concluded that the custody threshold had been crossed.

The appropriate sentence would be 12 months for the most severe abuse images. However, taking into account the mitigation and early guilty plea, the sentence would be six months suspended for two years.

The magistrate says Edwards did not pose a risk to the public or children and an immediate custodial sentence was not necessary because the evidence showed he could be rehabilitated.

The suspended sentence comes with requirements to complete a sex offender programme and further rehabilitative sessions - work that is overseen by the Probation Service.

Edwards will be placed on the sex offenders register for seven years - meaning he has to notify the police of his whereabouts.
 
SilentWitness said:
Edwards is given six months' imprisonment suspended for two years with a requirement to complete a sex offender programme.

Chief magistrate Paul Goldspring tells Edwards he had concluded that the custody threshold had been crossed.

The appropriate sentence would be 12 months for the most severe abuse images. However, taking into account the mitigation and early guilty plea, the sentence would be six months suspended for two years.

The magistrate says Edwards did not pose a risk to the public or children and an immediate custodial sentence was not necessary because the evidence showed he could be rehabilitated.

The suspended sentence comes with requirements to complete a sex offender programme and further rehabilitative sessions - work that is overseen by the Probation Service.

Edwards will be placed on the sex offenders register for seven years - meaning he has to notify the police of his whereabouts.
Click to expand...
Seems like an incredibly lenient sentence for his crimes. Horrible bastard.
 
Reading the BBC reporting, and "impaired decision making caused by a mood disorder and alcohol consumption" is being cited as a significant mitigating factor.

How much money do you have to have for that to count as mitigation, considering that probably more than half the people in prison can say the same thing?
 
V.O. said:
Reading the BBC reporting, and "impaired decision making caused by a mood disorder and alcohol consumption" is being cited as a significant mitigating factor.

How much money do you have to have for that to count as mitigation, considering that probably more than half the people in prison can say the same thing?
Click to expand...
Yeah. Don't really feel like those factors are an excuse for child porn either.
 
V.O. said:
Reading the BBC reporting, and "impaired decision making caused by a mood disorder and alcohol consumption" is being cited as a significant mitigating factor.

How much money do you have to have for that to count as mitigation, considering that probably more than half the people in prison can say the same thing?
Click to expand...

If you read court reports those mitigating factors are used, week in, week out, no matter what the offence or who the accused is. With, more recently, a very high chance of a mention of ADHD and/or ASD. It’s all just standard practice for defence lawyers.
 
Yeah definitely lenient but make no mistake, his life is absolutely ruined in every way shape and form.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
With, more recently, a very high chance of a mention of ADHD and/or ASD. It’s all just standard practice for defence lawyers.
Click to expand...
This generally only gets submitted alongside proof of diagnosis and if there is an official diagnosis then it is only right that it be considered (not automatically accepted) as a mitigating circumstance.
 
Pexbo said:
Indeed. I imagine if the prisons weren’t full he would be in one right now.
Click to expand...
I mean he should be in one. But someone with his profile will probably suffer more outside .
He cant go anywhere without being recognized as a peado
 
The Boy said:
This generally only gets submitted alongside proof of diagnosis and if there is an official diagnosis then it is only right that it be considered (not automatically accepted) as a mitigating circumstance.
Click to expand...

Sure. And no doubt the same applies with any other diagnosis that ends up being considered during sentencing.
 
Pexbo said:
They’re literally letting people out early because the system is so strained. Whether they are full or not is semantics, judges have also been told to avoid jail sentences in some cases.
Click to expand...
Yeah. So they were full and have released loads of people to ease the pressure meaning they are not full, like you said they were. Semantics or not.

And, trust me, this person not getting a jail sentence is not a a shock. The sentence sounds about similar to other people without the ‘fame’ attached who are charged and convicted of similar offences
 
What a disgustingly lenient sentence. The other one was only given a 12 month suspended sentence for supplying everything too!
 
remember, just stop oil protestors trying to help save the planet got sentenced to 4/5 years... and this nonce gets 0.
 
K Stand Knut said:
Yeah. So they were full and have released loads of people to ease the pressure meaning they are not full, like you said they were. Semantics or not.

And, trust me, this person not getting a jail sentence is not a a shock. The sentence sounds about similar to other people without the ‘fame’ attached who are charged and convicted of similar offences
Click to expand...
I can’t really be bothered to argue, maybe you are right and it’s in line with others but that’s besides the point as the same applies. Our prison system is under massive strain and until that is resolved sentences handed out for non-violent crimes where the offender does not pose an immediate risk to the public are inevitably going to be more lenient than if they weren’t.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Sure. And no doubt the same applies with any other diagnosis that ends up being considered during sentencing.
Click to expand...
Maybe I misunderstood your post, I read it to mean that defence lawyers would pop in ASD or ADHD as standard practice as an excuse regardless of the crime. Whereas in reality both conditions can and do influence behaviour, decision making and impulsiveness and therefore in my mind are circumstances that should be taken into consideration. Far too many people are in jail directly or indirectly due to poor mental health and if our (UK) system was better at dealing with and understanding that an earlier and preventative stage, lives of both victims and offenders could be set on a different and more positive course.

In short I thought you were flippantly writing off ASD and ADHD as excuses, but as I said, maybe I misunderstood.
 
The Boy said:
Maybe I misunderstood your post, I read it to mean that defence lawyers would pop in ASD or ADHD as standard practice as an excuse regardless of the crime. Whereas in reality both conditions can and do influence behaviour, decision making and impulsiveness and therefore in my mind are circumstances that should be taken into consideration. Far too many people are in jail directly or indirectly due to poor mental health and if our (UK) system was better at dealing with and understanding that an earlier and preventative stage, lives of both victims and offenders could be set on a different and more positive course.

In short I thought you were flippantly writing off ASD and ADHD as excuses, but as I said, maybe I misunderstood.
Click to expand...

The incidence of those two diagnoses has mushroomed in recent years. And that’s reflected by the exponential increase in how often they get mentioned in court proceedings as mitigating factors for people who break the law, from all walks of life. That’s all I’m saying. Which is a new trend on top of a much longer term one where other mental health diagnoses (usually substance abuse and mood disorders) regularly get used as mitigation.

I brought it up because the guy this thread is about seems intent on using his own mental health issues (alcohol abuse and a mood disorder) as mitigation for what he’s done. And someone was implying this was unusual and/or a luxury only afforded to famous/rich people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.