Huw Edwards handed suspended sentenced over indecent images

The 63-year-old previously admitted three charges of “making” indecent photographs after he was sent 41 illegal images by convicted paedophile Alex Williams over WhatsApp.

Seven of the indecent images shared with Edwards by Williams were of the most serious type.

Of those images, the estimated age of most of the children was between 13 and 15, but one was aged between seven and nine.

The judge sentencing Edwards said the former broadcaster’s “long-earned reputation is in tatters”.

(Image: Metropolitan Police/PA Wire) Chief Magistrate, district judge Paul Goldspring, said: “Perhaps it does not need saying but you are of previous good character.

“It is not an exaggeration to say your long-earned reputation is in tatters,” the judge said.

Edwards was given a six month prison sentence, suspended for two years with a requirement to complete a sex offender programme.

Opening the case against Edwards at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, prosecutor Ian Hope said: “It is 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.

“It is also clear that Mr Edwards was paying not insignificant sums of money – low hundreds of pounds on an occasional basis – to Alex Williams which Mr Williams directly asked for on several occasions, as gifts or presents, apparently off the back of sending pornographic images to Mr Edwards, about which images they chatted.

“Alex Williams has stated that the money was more generally to support him at university and amounted to around £1,000 to £1,500.”

The Court was told Edwards did not respond after Williams sent him a sexual video of children aged around seven to nine and 11 to 13.

Prosecutor Ian Hope said: “On February 10, 2021, a category A video was sent which is notable because the age of one of the children involved was significantly younger than in the rest of the images sent – it showed several acts of penetration between two children aged around seven to nine and 11 to 13 respectively.

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

“A week later… a number of attachments were sent which included two category B videos and four category C still images comprising indecent images of children.

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

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

Prosecutor Ian Hope continued: “In a later exchange on August 11 2021, Alex Williams says he has some ‘naughty pics and vids unsure if you’d like’. Mr Edwards tells him to ‘go on’ and Alex Williams states ‘yng (sic)’.

“Mr Edwards again tells him to ‘go on’ and Alex Williams sends a category A moving image showing a male child aged around 7 to 9…”

“Mr Edwards enquires where the video is from and Alex Williams says an image-sharing group on another social media platform which they have both also used, Telegram.

“Alex Williams says the subject is ‘quite yng looking’ to which Mr Edwards responds it ‘can be deceptive’ and asks if he has ‘any more?’

“Alex Williams says he has but he is not sure if Mr Edwards would like them as they are illegal.

“Mr Edwards says ‘Ah OK don’t’ and the exchange immediately following concerns a series of images which Alex Williams describes as ‘looks young don’t he but he’s deffo 19.’

Philip Evans KC, defending, said Huw Edwards did not make payments to Alex Williams in order to receive indecent images of children.

Mr Evans told the court: “Mr Edwards did not make payments in order for images to be sent to him, and he certainly did not make payments in order that indecent images would be sent to him.

“Mr Edwards positively told Mr Williams not to send images of people who were underage.”

He added: “He did not store any of those images on any device.

“He did not use them for any personal gratification and he did not gain any gratification from those indecent images.

“He did not send them to anyone else onwardly and he has never sought similar images before from any source, and he has not sought similar images from any other source since.”

Mr Evans said Edwards was “truly sorry” for how he has “damaged his family and his loved ones”, and for committing the offences.

He told the court: “You will have appreciated sir that the press has been extraordinary to the extent that this matter has been reported and Mr Edwards through me wishes to apologise to the court. He wishes the court, through me, to know how profoundly sorry he is. He recognises the repugnant nature of such indecent images and the hurt that is done to those who appear in such images.

“For his part in that he apologises sincerely and he makes it clear that he has the utmost regret and he recognises that he has betrayed the priceless trust and faith of so many people.

“He knows he has hurt and he has damaged his family and his loved ones around him and for all of these things he is truly sorry and he is truly sorry that he has committed these offences.”

The relevant images in Edwards’ case range from the most serious category, known as category A, to the least serious, known as category C.

They include seven category A images, 12 category B images and 22 category C images.

The Sentencing Council, a public body sponsored by the Ministry of Justice, defines category A images as those involving penetrative sexual activity, sexual activity with an animal, or sadism.

Category B images are those involving non-penetrative sexual activity, while category C images are indecent images that do not fall into A or B.

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

It can range from opening an attachment to an email containing an image, to accessing pornographic websites in which indecent photographs of children appear by way of an automatic “pop-up” mechanism.

In the case of Edwards, he received the illegal images as part of a WhatsApp conversation.