Sentence reviews must be expanded, says victims’ commissioner after Edwards case

Sentences such as those imposed on Huw Edwards cannot currently be reviewed as the Government scheme does not cover magistrates’ courts.

Former BBC broadcaster Huw Edwards received a suspended sentence for possessing indecent images of children (Lucy North/PA) (PA Wire)

Rules for reviewing “unduly lenient” sentences should be expanded to cover more crimes, London’s victims’ commissioner has said in the wake of Huw Edwards’ suspended sentence.

The former BBC newsreader received a six-month prison sentence, suspended for two years, on Monday after he admitted possessing indecent images of children.

The fact he was not sent to prison immediately has drawn criticism from some quarters but there is no way to change his sentence.

There is a process for reviewing sentences, the Unduly Lenient Sentence (ULS) scheme, but it only applies to certain crown court sentences. Edwards was sentenced in a magistrates’ court and is therefore not covered by the scheme.

Claire Waxman, the victims’ commissioner for London, said she had been lobbying “for years” to expand the ULS scheme, adding it was “vital that the rights of victims are prioritised”.

She said: “It is an injustice to them that there is no route to appeal a sentence passed in the magistrates’ court when offenders can appeal against their sentence and I am clear that this must be urgently reviewed.”

Ms Waxman also called for an end to the strict 28-day time limit for asking for a review, saying it was “simply not right” that offenders can lodge appeals outside this timeframe in exceptional circumstances “but this same entitlement is not provided to victims”.

Among those questioning Edwards’ sentence is Tory leadership candidate Tom Tugendhat, who raised the issue in a letter to the Attorney General, Lord Richard Hermer.

Despite Edwards’ case not being eligible, Mr Tugendhat called for Lord Hermer to review his sentence under the ULS scheme, saying it was “crucial that sentences serve as a deterrent and reflect the serious nature of these crimes”.

He also argued that the broadcaster’s sentence “appears to be inconsistent with the guidelines set forth by the Sentencing Council”, saying those guidelines called for “a custodial sentence”.

However, the six-month sentence was within the range of between 26 weeks and three years set down by the guidelines, which also note: “A suspended sentence is a custodial sentence.”

Sentencing guidelines suggest that a suspended sentence may be appropriate where there is a “realistic prospect of rehabilitation” and the offender does not present a danger to the public.

The Government has previously expressed reluctance to interfere with sentences passed by the courts, with Sir Keir Starmer telling reporters he was “shocked and appalled” by the case but the sentence was “for the court to decide, having looked at all the available evidence”.

Legal commentators have argued Edwards’ sentence is in line with others for this type of offence, with one solicitor telling the PA news agency that an immediate custodial sentence was “never likely”.

Malcolm Johnson, head of abuse claims at Lime Solicitors, told the PA news agency: “The magistrate felt that Edwards did not need to go to prison to protect the public.”

He added: “This was an offender who presented himself to court, having made a guilty plea at the first opportunity, with evidence of mental health problems and expressing remorse.”

Along with his suspended sentence, Edwards was ordered to attend 25 “rehabilitation sessions”, be placed on the sex offender treatment programme for 40 days and be placed on the sex offenders’ register for seven years. He must also pay £3,000 in prosecution costs.