BSQ Briefing – Huw Edwards Sentencing

As a leading defence practice specializing in indecent images cases, BSQ is committed to providing detailed legal insights in this area through our blog. In the second part of our analysis on the Huw Edwards case, we focus on the relevant sentencing guidelines for the offence of making indecent images and consider the likely sentencing outcomes.

Background

Huw Edwards pleaded guilty to three offences of making indecent images at Westminster Magistrates Court on July 31, 2024. His sentencing is scheduled for September 16, 2024. In our previous blog, we explored the legal definition and requirements of the offence of making illegal images. Here, we turn our attention to the potential sentencing outcomes in Mr. Edwards’ case.

Sentencing Guidelines Overview

The Sentencing Guidelines Council has established detailed guidelines that courts must follow in indecent images cases, although there is some flexibility to depart from them in certain circumstances. Courts may also consider relevant case law when determining sentences.

In Mr. Edwards' case, the court will base its decision primarily on the most serious offence of making Category A images. Mr. Edwards has pleaded guilty to making seven Category A images, which is expected to be the lead offence for sentencing purposes. The guidelines for Category A offences suggest a starting point of one year’s custody, with a range of six months to three years.

The court will likely first calculate the sentence for the Category A offence before determining sentences for the remaining offences, which may be ordered to run concurrently.

Structured Sentencing Approach

The Sentencing Guidelines prescribe a structured approach to sentencing, requiring the court to make a sequence of decisions. Starting from the 12-month baseline for a Category A offence, the court will then consider any aggravating factors, which could include:

• The age and vulnerability of the children depicted.

• Whether the images show children in discernible pain or distress.

• -The volume and nature of the images.

• -How long the images were in Mr. Edwards’ possession.

• The number of victims depicted.

In this case, Mr. Edwards has pleaded guilty to possessing 7 Category A, 12 Category B, and 22 Category C images. Although this volume is significant, it is relatively low compared to what is legally considered a "high volume" (defined as 250+ Category A images by CPS guidance).

The Court will balance these aggravating factors against any mitigating factors, which may include Mr. Edwards’ lack of previous convictions, demonstrated remorse, positive character, and any steps taken to address offending behaviour. Mr. Edwards may also present a private counsellor’s report regarding his past conduct, along with character references.

Additionally, the court will consider a probation report prepared following an interview with a probation officer. This report will assess Mr. Edwards’ attitude towards his offending, his risk to the public, and the likelihood of reoffending. The probation officer’s opinion will help guide the court’s sentencing decision.

After weighing all factors, the court will determine the sentence Mr. Edwards would have received if the case had gone to trial. Typically, the sentence will then be reduced by 25% to reflect Mr. Edwards’ early guilty plea, the maximum deduction available since he pleaded guilty at the first Magistrates' court hearing.

Consideration of a Suspended Sentence

Finally, the court will consider whether a suspended sentence is appropriate. The option of a suspended sentence generally applies to custodial sentences between 14 days and two years. The Community and Custodial Sentencing Overarching Guideline outlines specific criteria for when a custodial sentence should not be suspended, including:

1. If the offender presents a risk or danger to the public.

2. If immediate custody is the only way to achieve appropriate punishment.

3. If there is a history of poor compliance with court orders.

Conversely, a suspended sentence might be appropriate if there is:

1. A realistic prospect of rehabilitation.

2. Strong personal mitigation.

3. A significant harmful impact on others if immediate custody is imposed.

The court should carefully consider these factors, along with specific guidance in the Sentencing Guidelines for indecent images cases. The Guidelines note that

“a community order with a sex offender treatment programme requirement under part 3 of Schedule 9 of the Sentencing Code can be a proper alternative to a short or moderate length custodial sentence.”

Given these factors, along with recent judicial pronouncements on prison overcrowding, there is a strong argument that the court may opt for a suspended sentence in Mr. Edwards’ case. Since November 2022, Operation Safeguard has been in place due to ongoing prison overcrowding, and the Ministry of Justice has advised Courts about the possibility of early releases for detainees to address these issues. In R v Manning [2020] EWCA Crim 592, the Court held that prison conditions could impact both the length and type of sentence to be imposed. A suspended sentence therefore remains the most likely outcome in Mr Edward’s case even despite a recent Court of Appeal authority in R v Gregory Hagan [2024] EWCA Crim 942, handed down on July 18, 2024. In this case, the Court of Appeal upheld an 18-month custodial sentence imposed by Judge Campbell at Warwick Crown Court on May 23, 2024 in a case where the defendant pleaded guilty to making a far higher number of 922 Category A images. See our recent blog on the Hagan case, which we suggest is best understood as confined to it’s particular facts.

You can find more information about our indecent images solicitors and their expertise in this cases on our dedicated guide. If you are accused of an indecent images offence and require legal representation, please contact our offices on 020 3858 0851.