You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Images shared over WhatsApp, so I’d say there isnt much doubt he did it, but the severity/legality of the images may be questioned. But really, a well known public figure, what on earth was he thinking. Just like those idiot MPs who sent naked pics of themselves. And the BBC reportedly paid him 400k for the time he has had off. I think there’ll be a rather large piece about this in the DM tomorrow.
Whilst those MPs were indeed idiots, I don't think adults sending naked pics of themselves is as remotely serious as sharing indecent images of children. Wrong? No question, but not the same IMO.
No, but both are career ending, so why even think about sending pics of your bits to anyone, or, pics of others bits. So well off they think they are above the Law? Or life is so good they need to get a bit of an extra buzz?
Agree with that.
Could well explain why he missed out on an honour after the Queen's funeral!
but the severity/legality of the images may be questioned.
Severity isn’t something easy to argue about, the classification of images is fairly well defined, (Cat A,B or C - you can look the definitions up but i wouldn’t recommend it). If needs be the bench / judge can look at the images.
I’m not sure what you mean by legality. There’s various defences available but arguing about the age of the child isn’t one of them.
“I’m not sure what you mean by legality. There’s various defences available but arguing about the age of the child isn’t one of them.”
I’d guess that if the Prosecution says the images were of a 15yo, the Defence could argue it was a 16yo (or is it 18 now?), or that the images were of an 18+yo, but made to look like an under 16(18?).
If they were clearly young children, then there’s pretty much no defence, but, it has taken 6+ months to bring the charges, so I’d guess it isnt in that class of offence (presumably the younger the person in the images, the more severe the offence?), as surely the charges would have been brought a lot sooner for the most serious of offences.
, as surely the charges would have been brought a lot sooner for the most serious of offences.
The delay in this sort of matter is almost always down to slow progress in getting the devices seized downloaded; getting all the data and images off the device and into a viewable format. There are hundreds / thousands of these jobs a year and only a finite number of forensic IT staff.
Classification of indecent imagery takes a special type of person imv. There was a 24 hours in police custody episode where a bunch of plod were grading a whole hard drives of images from various bits of it kit. Days of work.
Classification of indecent imagery takes a special type of person imv.
Isn't there a limited amount of time that they are allowed to work dealing with those sorts of crimes?
Wonder what he'll be spending the extra £40k pay rise he got w for being off for 9 months.
I'll be suggesting it to my MD tomorrow that as I've not had 9 months off, I should get a £160k rise.
So he's pled guilty.
This is unrelated to the original case though, right? So is this a case of being investigated for one thing, having all your digital equipment seized and then charged/convicted of something else once the police have examined it all?
I feel like I no longer trust anyone in the media to be who they appear to be
Yeh I think this is from what they found on his devices when investigating the original case. Not sure if the original case is actually going ahead??
What I found interesting is that the charges are a bit misleading. When I read 'making Indecent pics of children' I'm thinking he's been personally taking the images
Whereas apparently just opening them after being sent them in wattsapp falls under this law. Not sure why he's opening 40 pics of kids however, so still very much a nonce in my eyes.
There was a 24 hours in police custody episode where a bunch of plod were grading a whole hard drives of images from various bits of it kit.
Yes, I'm always mindful of that whenever I think that I'm having a shit day at work. It could be much much worse.
"What I found interesting is that the charges are a bit misleading. When I read ‘making Indecent pics of children’ I’m thinking he’s been personally taking the images
Whereas apparently just opening them after being sent them in wattsapp falls under this law. Not sure why he’s opening 40 pics of kids however, so still very much a nonce in my eyes."
I think any reasonable person, open opening something like by accident would simply go straight to the police station to report it.
To do anything but that implies intent to receive them, to me.
I haven't read much into this - but I am presuming that if one was sent said illegal images on Whatsapp completely unannounced, and therefore saw them on one's phone, but immediately deleted and reported to the police then this wouldn't be classed as 'making images'?
I would imagine that if there is an intent to receive and/or look at said images then this would quite rightly be an offence, or am I barking up the wrong tree here?
I feel like I no longer trust anyone in the media to be who they appear to be
Why is the Huw Edwards case in the news - because lot of us know him. But if you counted up all the people 'in the media' that you know - and by that I mean actors, musicians, politicians, sports people...the list goes on - it'll run into the thousands. And among them will be bad apples - just like there are in the rest of society where it's not 'in the public interest' to widely publicise this stuff. Edwards did not get hold of these images using his influence and power - he was just a sad grubby man exchanging images online. The depressing thing is not that 'I no longer trust anyone in the media' but the fact it's all around us - statistically there will be one member (or more) here who is into this shit. Statistically there will be someone (or more) in your family or your friendship group or who you work with who is too.
Creepily, I think there will be a number of thousands of (mostly) men this evening having a bit of a think after hearing about Edwards' crime having a bit of a wake up call and wondering if what they get up to in the privacy of their computer screens might count as 'making indecent images' too and having a bit of a delete session.
I haven’t read much into this – but I am presuming that if one was sent said illegal images on Whatsapp completely unannounced, and therefore saw them on one’s phone, but immediately deleted and reported to the police then this wouldn’t be classed as ‘making images’?
I would imagine that if there is an intent to receive and/or look at said images then this would quite rightly be an offence, or am I barking up the wrong tree here?
Its worth having a look of the fate of Police Superintendent Novlett Robyn Williams to see where the line might be.
Making covers the creation of an image on a device, effectively by downloading it to your device you’re making that particular image.
The image in the charge is that particular version of a photo or video rather than the original, first generation, image. So Huw downloads an image to his phone, he has not have made the original but he has in effect made the image on his phone.
Re unsolicited images, there is a defence available
This defence that the photographs were unsolicited (s. 160(2)(c) CJA 1988) applies to s160(1) CJA 1988 only. The defendant has a legal defence if they can prove that the photograph in question was unsolicited and that they did not keep it for an unreasonable time (R v Collier [2005] 1 Cr. App. R. 9). The issue of reasonableness is a matter for the jury to decide on the facts of any particular case.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/indecent-and-prohibited-images-children
Yes, I’m always mindful of that whenever I think that I’m having a shit day at work. It could be much much worse.
I did it for a few years, some of the most significant / rewarding bits of work i’ve done; including getting physical hold of two kids who were going to be raped at some stage. PTSD from repeated exposure to indirect trauma being the downside.
"I think any reasonable person, open opening something like by accident would simply go straight to the police station to report it."
LOL. I would destroy the phone and never breathe a word of it to anyone. If you think that going to the police with illegal images on your phone will end up anywhere other than in court on a slam-dunk charge of "making illegal images" then I've got a bridge you might be interested in. The article I read said he'd several times insisted that he didn't want to be sent anything illegal or underage. Nevertheless, he received the images, and is therefore guilty.
The image in the charge is that particular version of a photo or video rather than the original, first generation, image. So Huw downloads an image to his phone, he has not have made the original but he has in effect made the image on his phone.
I think from something I was involved in at work this year (child on child) this has got a little more complicated recently. Whatsapp by default stores the images you receive. And 'opening' has become more vague as it's not like an email with an attachment to click on and open. You might not need to consciously save the image or 'open' the image in the traditional email sense for it to count.
Seems this case was seperate from the 17 year old he was communicating with asking for pics.
"Police said an investigation into Edwards began after a phone seized by officers as part of an unrelated probe revealed the broadcaster's participation in a WhatsApp conversation."
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/huw-edwards-live-updates-former-29647361
His poor wife and family.
According to that WalesOnline article it wasn't Huw's devices that were seized and found to contain the images but the devices of the person who sent them to him. In fact it would appear that Huw specifically asked the person not to send him anything illegal and when his own devices were searched no such images were found. But the evidence from the device of the person who sent the images was enough to charge Huw.
The article also says that the person who sent the images (and who possessed many others) received a suspended sentence, so it seems unlikely that Huw would go to jail.
I read something a while back that gave some shocking statistics for the number of such images apparently available online (darkweb?) and the number of times they are apparently viewed in the UK. The implication was that the police had almost given up trying to catch people viewing this stuff and most arrests were either the result of searching devices seized for other purposes or foreign (usually USA) agencies passing on information obtained from taking down sites. Even then there was a quote from a policeman to the effect that they couldn't even pursue all of those cases and had to prioritise ones where they thought there was a direct threat to children. Pretty sobering stuff.
LOL. I would destroy the phone and never breathe a word of it to anyone.
Given whatsapps tendency to "backup" messages and a now "missing" phone that might actually prove fruitless and look suspicious!
If you think that going to the police with illegal images on your phone will end up anywhere other than in court on a slam-dunk charge of “making illegal images” then I’ve got a bridge you might be interested in.
Well there is a defence "that he had not himself seen the photographs and did not know, nor had any cause to suspect, them to be indecent." I think if you get unsolicited images from a normally trustworthy source you'll be far from a slam-dunk charge.
The article I read said he’d several times insisted that he didn’t want to be sent anything illegal or underage. Nevertheless, he received the images, and is therefore guilty.
You can assume he's had access to some very experienced lawyers who have seen the messages, seen the context and discussed it with him and he pled guilty - had it been a one off he might have got away with it. Had he deleted the (worst) images he might have got away with it. its difficult to believe that anyone gets cat A images and thinks that its legit. Whatsapp makes it very easy to block a number you don't want so the "I asked them not to send them" excuse only really works once.
"You can assume he’s had access to some very experienced lawyers who have seen the messages, seen the context and discussed it with him and he pled guilty"
Definitely
"had it been a one off he might have got away with it."
Is this based on an expert understanding of the law and its application, or something you just made up because it was convenient for you?
I suspect that even if the lawyers said he did have some chance of getting away with it, they would also advise that a trial would be lengthy, embarrassing, all sorts of mud would get thrown, and if convicted he'd get a rather worse punishment than the alternative of a quick guilty plea with probable suspended sentence. But as I understand it (based on what I've read) there is really very little defence and "making" doesn't mean anything like its common english usage. Specifically there has been no suggestion that he did anything other than receive illegal pictures that he had repeatedly asked not to be sent.
You may also recall children getting caught up on kiddie porn charges on the basis of taking pictures of themselves and sending them to peers.
Child sexual exploitation is disgusting and offensive but all sorts of bystanders are caught on the pitchforks of the incompetently written laws.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/man-who-sent-indecent-images-29652680
the wales online article reporting the court hearing.
The court heard that Edwards had engaged in online chat involving illegal photographs with an adult man on WhatsApp between December 2020 and August 2021. The man, Williams, sent him 377 sexual images of which 41 were indecent images of children. The bulk of these, 36, were sent during a two-month period. On February 2, 2021, the male asked whether what he was sending was too young, to which Edwards told him not to send any underage images, the court heard
Edwards told him not to send any underage images, the court heard
After which point it would appear that he carried on receiving further obviously underage pictures and took no action to remove himself from the chat, report the images to the police and/or block the sender.
Sentenced today. 6 months suspended.
Given the nature of the crime, I'm disappointed to read that an early guilty plea leads to a reduction from the maximum possible sentence. Shouldn't apply in crimes like this in my opinion
Got away with that then. Disgraceful.
This country ffs
Sexual exploitation of kids - slap on the wrist.
Nasty words on Facebook - off to prison you go
Given the nature of the crime, I’m disappointed to read that an early guilty plea leads to a reduction from the maximum possible sentence. Shouldn’t apply in crimes like this in my opinion
I'm also disappointed that it was suspended, but the rules around sentencing and early pleas seem to apply to all crimes and I'm not sure our opinion would make changing it for certain types of crime any better. Certainly seems a consistent sentence with a similar recent case local to me.
Media kerfuffle aside he was never going to get a custodial on the charges he faced and in the grand scheme of things he had very few Cat A images (seven as opposed to the fairly routine hundreds if not thousands nonces have in these sort of cases).
Seemed to lean quite heavily on his "mental health". Great, worsen the stigma for the millions who already struggle with their mental health yet manage to avoid drowning out their problems with deviant behaviour :-/
Sexual exploitation of kids – slap on the wrist.
Nasty words using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour intending thereby to stir up racial hatred, or where having regard to all the circumstances, racial hatred is likely to be stirred up, on Facebook – off to prison you go
ftfy
Sexual exploitation of kids – slap on the wrist.
Nasty words using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour intending thereby to stir up racial hatred, or where having regard to all the circumstances, racial hatred is likely to be stirred up, on Facebook – off to prison you go
ftfy
Call me old fashioned, I still steadfastly believe the first one is far FAR worse. Would anyone like to disagree?
That doesn't mean the second is acceptable before you start
in the grand scheme of things he had very few Cat A images
Maybe it's just me, but having Cat A > 0, is as wrong as it gets. There's no sliding scale here
Suspended sentence - what a joke our legal system is.
Unless he has some serious bargaining info??
Maybe it’s just me, but having Cat A > 0, is as wrong as it gets. There’s no sliding scale here
Not just you but unfortunately the realities of the criminal justice system don’t agree. I’ve seen some ****ing horrors with personal libraries of cat A get off with suspended sentences so seven was never going to get him inside.
I still steadfastly believe the first one is far FAR worse. Would anyone like to disagree?
Kilo wasn't implying that it isn't when challenging your attempt to trivialise the second.
This country ffs
Sexual exploitation of kids – slap on the wrist.
Nasty words on Facebook – off to prison you go
as above, you need to try not to go all Daily Mail about this - it's not just "messages on Facebook" - inciting riot/racial hatred etc via a global platform has the potentially to be massively damaging so rightfully is regarded as extremely serious IMO - imagine if a mob had burned down a hotel for example & killed 20 people! Would be horrendous.
That said, I think this is also serious and think he's gotten off very lightly - some of the early comments on the first few pages of this thread have not aged well have they!!
Don't really want to get into "wrongun top trumps" though over which is "worse" as they are both despicable obviously.
Call me old fashioned, I still steadfastly believe the first one is far FAR worse. Would anyone like to disagree?
That doesn’t mean the second is acceptable before you start
Yes, and there will be a sliding scale of sentences for both. Punishment will reflect what is in the sentencing guidelines.
Explanation by a legal expert on the world at one seemed very balanced (I’m sure some will say BBC bias…!), and said this was in keeping with other sentences with no special treatment. He also said our legal system doesn’t really allow you to compare this sentence to that for riot or sitting on a motorway.
This will add fuel to the fire of bastards like Farage and Tice who want to discredit and undermine the BBC. Notwithstanding that what he has done is very wrong indeed.
I think the perception of an easy ride for a Beeb anchorman and 'celeb' will be hard to shake off.
Explanation by a legal expert on the world at one seemed very balanced (I’m sure some will say BBC bias…!), and said this was in keeping with other sentences with no special treatment. He also said our legal system doesn’t really allow you to compare this sentence to that for riot or sitting on a motorway.
away with you sensible response, only statements including hanging or castration is allowed on this stuff!
::insert laughing crying emoji::
I haven’t followed in detail but was his crime here that he was sent pictures and asked the sender to stop sending them? What else was he convicted of?
The Secret Barrister is a good person to follow on Twitter - the books are good too. They give an insight into how the sentencing was arrived at.
https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1835673864614887851
I recall an episode of 24 hours in police custody which dealt with a bloke who had hundreds (or thousands?) of indecent images including the most serious category, which ultimately resulted in a suspended sentence. So, I wasn't surprised today but I suspect a lot of the public will be.
As above, the discussion on the world at one earlier was balanced and informative.
I'm sure he'd of felt more comfortable in a segregated part of a prison than walking down the street as a convicted child sex offender in possession of a face recognisable to most of the country. He's effectively under house arrest for life. He's not heading to the pub to celebrate with his legal team
And in particular the 2nd tweet in that thread:
"The first point to note is that “making” is misleading - the offence was possessing them on a computer, rather than creating or recording the images. The law is grossly confusing in this area."
If someone sends you kiddie porn you *are* guilty of an offence the second you open up the image. You may get away with it if you're low profile and/or have some really good excuses (like, you had no idea what was sent, etc). But you have broken the law.
I was listening to R2 earlier and they had someone, sorry I cant remember who, some legal type person, and it sounded quite sensible..
They basically said that he was punished by the court according to the guidelines for that type of offence... adding that there may well be speculation from all sides that it might be too hard or too soft, but courts/judges generally need a very good/exeptional reason for handing out punishment outwith the guidelines.
So there may well be an argument for the guidlines to be adjusted in general, but that is a seperate argument from the case in point.
I will say I don't know much about the Huw Edwards case, other than headlines, so I'm not expressing an opinon on this case, either way, just opinion on the legal position with regards to sentencing guidelines.
So there may well be an argument for the guidlines to be adjusted in general, but that is a seperate argument from the case in point.
Well put.
If someone sends you kiddie porn you *are* guilty of an offence the second you open up the image. You may get away with it if you’re low profile and/or have some really good excuses (like, you had no idea what was sent, etc). But you have broken the law.
I think this is the crux of the issue... for example someone randomly puts a GIF of a dude shagging a goat into a 'lads banter' whattsapp chat group... am I then guitly of possessing bestiality porn or whatever? Bit harsh, no?
for example someone randomly puts a GIF of a dude shagging a goat into a ‘lads banter’ whattsapp chat group… am I then guitly of possessing bestiality porn or whatever? Bit harsh, no?
I think it would depend more on the context in which is was sent/received.
'Lads banter' isn't going to attract a harsher penalty than if it was a group or individual into that kind of thing.
But then look at some of the convictions of 'lads banter' when police have shared pics of a deceased in a whats app group. Loss of job, pension and even imprisonment. And with the police, given the job they do and the sights some of them have seen, a very black humour can be prevalent.
But then look at some of the convictions of ‘lads banter’ when police have shared pics of a deceased in a whats app group. Loss of job, pension and even imprisonment. And with the police, given the job they do and the sights some of them have seen, a very black humour can be prevalent.
Those were the officers who took the pictures then shared them, the amount of rules they broke exceeded the criteria by a long way.
As for Huw Edwards, he has been sentenced, i thought the publicity part might have got him a custodial, but at this time, due to prison spaces, the level of his crime, pleading guilty, etc, etc, the judge has passed sentence and it is comparable with pretty much every local one i've seen over the last few years, add to that his entire reputation is gone, his job is gone, he is a pariah and the rest, and it's the public sentence that'll do him in, his entire remaining life will be high stress wherever and whatever he does.
"... He’s effectively under house arrest for life. He’s not heading to the pub to celebrate with his legal team..."
No. But he could be straight back off to his bedroom to surf the bad part of the Internet with stronger encription this time.
This BBC article gives a good insight into the nature of his offending and how his sentence was arrived at.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn033p4d82xo
He also said our legal system doesn’t really allow you to compare this sentence to that for riot or sitting on a motorway.
From the perspective of them being different crimes with different sentencing guidelines, sure. But I note a dispiriting tendency in our justice system to punish physical crimes against people less seriously than crimes against property.
No. But he could be straight back off to his bedroom to surf the bad part of the Internet with stronger encription this time.
Not really, depending on his restrictions. He might be barred from use of electronic devices or have to use ones with no access. There could also be software installed. The OMU (offender management unit) officers who will "visit" will have the right to check his devices as part of his being on the SOR. Any doubts will see devices impounded and checked. The OMU officers have training in checking devices although not the forensic investigation that the specialists have.
But I note a dispiriting tendency in our justice system to punish physical crimes against people less seriously than crimes against property.
That's pretty much the foundation of most legal systems, property has value, people (for the most part) do not.
Standard sentence according to guidelines. Some mitigation on the grounds of mental health, and a third off for pleading guilty at the very earliest opportunity. The magistrate's judgment is now posted on the BBC website as posted above. Seven years on the sex offenders register and a lifetime of public shame is the real punishment here.
I knew someone who did something similar in the days before WhatsApp, it was internet chatrooms in those days. they received a year in prison, which they served. The offence was, however, more serious.
Suspended sentence – what a joke our legal system is.
How long do you think he should have spent in the sex offenders wing of the local prison to come out less likely to commit offences?
Unless he has some serious bargaining info??
the fact he was sentenced entirely within the guidelines suggests he didn’t get any special treatment.
He sounded completely inept at hiding anything and by the sounds of it, was open for blackmail the way he was going. Again, this will play into the sentencing, there was no active IT solutions to hiding or whatever, it just sounds sad and desperate. As said a few times, i back the justice system here, even with it's many faults at times, i honestly thought the government would press for a custodial here to show power, or push out a statement condemning the judges decision, but neither has happened, thankfully, it starts to get into two tier systems when the public view and political views are part of the sentencing criteria.
Given the nature of the crime, I’m disappointed to read that an early guilty plea leads to a reduction from the maximum possible sentence. Shouldn’t apply in crimes like this in my opinion
it applies in ALL crimes - from murder to speeding. If you don’t like the idea of a discount of 1/3rd for pleading guilty at an early opportunity - consider it an extra punishment of 50% for not pleading guilty at the start!
Without such “credit” most cases would proceed to trial, because even if you knew you were guilty there’s a chance the crown screw up their case preparation, witnesses appear confused / don’t turn up etc. Every witness would have the trauma and inconvenience of giving evidence at court every time, which would mean fewer witnesses come forward, and the entire justice system would grind to a halt (even more than now) and then people would be locked up for longer during times when prisons are bursting at the seems and governments are having to use special provisions to alleviate it. You would have nothing to loose by testing the crown case. We have one of the biggest prison populations in Europe, and high reoffending rates.
I've seen cases in the past where the accused have pled not guilty up until the morning of the court appearance, and still got the discount, that was in a case of joyriding, theft of a motor vehicle and other charges where the defendants had to be cut out of the wreck by the fire brigade!
i honestly thought the government would press for a custodial here to show power, or push out a statement condemning the judges decision,
This would be why we have a reasonably independent judiciary and now have a government that understands what that means.
For those not on Twitter, I've unrolled the Secret Barrister thread. It's worth a read.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1835673864614887851.html
They've updated it now with a link to the paedo- er, pdf-file containing the court's sentencing notes.
I’ve seen cases in the past where the accused have pled not guilty up until the morning of the court appearance, and still got the discount, that was in a case of joyriding, theft of a motor vehicle and other charges where the defendants had to be cut out of the wreck by the fire brigade!
The "expectation" is you get 1/3rd off for guilty at first appearance. 1/4 off for guilty at a case management hearing. About 1/10th off for pleading on the day of the trial. The latter still avoiding the witnesses having to actually go through the experience of giving evidence, and saving court time.
It was a 6 month sentence suspended. 6 months is quite a low figure in sentencing, so the court clearly took this at the low end of offending.
This area is full of difficult areas, I work with and assess risk of people convicted of these offending and a lot of it doesn’t sit well on many levels. Firstly the number of images or their content isn’t indicative of an increased risk of further offending. In fact I’ve been at a number of events where renowned and highly educated people argue that the risk of reconviction for people convicted of posessing CSAM is so low that we shouldn’t prosecute them full stop. the latest, accredited research focused risk assessments for technology driven offending has meant we’re now screening people out of treatment because to do so would increase their risk. This is no way to negate any victim or their experiences, in my offices victims are considered at every stage.
Added to the mix is that the vast majority of people who use these images are children and a good proportion of the images online are self generated and the whole thing becomes a nightmare. As with most of these things the focus should be education of young people and holding tech companies to account
The constant intermingling of facts related to Edwards' mental health and sexuality in so many articles, alongside him having a lot of indecent underage imagery, is not something that sits comfortably with me.
I know it's a defence argument but in my eyes it is totally irrelevant, and can subconsciously link these 3 things in certain people's perception of who a "predator" is.
Two of these things are very very normal, one is completely abnormal and depraved.