Connect with us

Published

on

The London Victims’ Commissioner has called for it to be easier to appeal lenient sentences after it emerged the case of Huw Edwards cannot be reviewed.

The disgraced BBC veteran was spared jail on Monday for accessing indecent images of children as young as seven, with the judge handing down a six-month suspended term at Westminster Magistrates Court.

Senior political figures, including Tory leadership hopeful Tom Tugendhat, have written to the government’s chief legal adviser urging for a review of the case under the Unduly Lenient Scheme (ULS).

The ULS allows anyone to ask for certain sentences to be looked at by the Attorney General’s Office (AGO), who will then refer it to the Court of Appeal if they think it is not tough enough.

However, the scheme only applies to Crown Court sentences – as pointed out by the Victims’ Commissioner for London Claire Waxman.

She said she has long called for this to be changed, so it is more accessible.

“For clarity, the Huw Edwards sentence cannot be reviewed under the Unduly Lenient Sentencing Scheme as it’s only applicable for certain Crown Court sentences. I have lobbied for years to make it more accessible,” Ms Waxman said on X.

“Important to understand the rights of victims.”

According to the AGO, only certain cases heard at the Crown Court, which tries the most serious offences, can be reviewed under the ULS. This includes murder, rape, robbery, and some child sex crimes.

Ms Waxman, who has lobbied for victims to have the same rights as offenders when it comes to appealing sentences, was responding to a letter from Mr Tugendhat to the attorney general saying the Edwards case should be reviewed.

In further comments to Sky News, she said the ULS could be more accessible by being better communicated to victims.

She added: “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.

“Together with the Josh Hanson Trust, I have long called for a change to the strict 28-day timeframe within which to make an application to the scheme. It’s simply not right that offenders are able to appeal their sentence outside of this timeframe in exceptional circumstances, but this same entitlement is not provided to victims.”

Mr Tugendhat, the shadow security minister, claimed the former presenter’s sentence appeared “inconsistent” with sentencing guidelines, which recommend custodial sentences for possession of Category A images.

He added that “as a national household name, the country have been shocked by the criminal activities of Mr Edwards”, and they will be looking at the government to “lead by example and ensure that heinous crimes are punished swiftly”.

Reform UK deputy leader Richard Tice made a similar appeal to the attorney general, saying that “serious crime must be punished with serious sentence”.

Read More:
What was Huw Edwards’ defence?
BBC asks Edwards to return £200,000

The National Association for People Abused in Childhood (NAPAC) also expressed concern about the fact Edwards was spared jail, saying it “sends a troubling message to both survivors of abuse and those who exploit children”.

However, legal commentator The Secret Barrister said in a thread on X that Edwards’ sentence was “entirely expected for offences of this type”.

They said the judge will have taken in mitigating factors such as mental health, his low risk of reoffending and his early guilty plea when deciding not to hand down a jail term.

Edwards pleaded guilty to three counts of “making” indecent images of children.

The court heard how he paid up to £1,500 to a paedophile who sent him 41 illegal images between December 2020 and August 2021, seven of which 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.

As part of his sentence, the 63-year-old must attend a sex offender treatment programme and 25 rehabilitation sessions.

He is also required to sign the sex offenders’ register for seven years and pay £3,128 in costs and a victim surcharge.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

BBC waiting for ‘Huw Edwards to return salary’

Delivering his sentence, the judge said Edwards would be “particularly vulnerable” if he was given a custodial sentence, both from attack from others and as a suicide risk.

Edwards’ barrister Philip Evans KC expressed remorse on behalf of the ex-presenter, saying he “recognises the repugnant nature and the hurt done to those who appear” in the images and “for his part in that he apologises sincerely and makes clear he has the utmost regret”.

He also said Edwards recognises he has “betrayed the priceless trust” placed in him, damaged his family and is “truly sorry he’s committed these offences”.

During his four decades at the BBC, Edwards was among the broadcasting teams covering historic events, with his most high-profile moment coming in September 2022, when he announced the death of Queen Elizabeth II.

Continue Reading

Politics

Crypto’s path to legitimacy runs through the CARF regulation

Published

on

By

Crypto’s path to legitimacy runs through the CARF regulation

Crypto’s path to legitimacy runs through the CARF regulation

The CARF regulation, which brings crypto under global tax reporting standards akin to traditional finance, marks a crucial turning point.

Continue Reading

Politics

Tokenized equity still in regulatory grey zone — Attorneys

Published

on

By

Tokenized equity still in regulatory grey zone — Attorneys

Tokenized equity still in regulatory grey zone — Attorneys

The nascent real-world tokenized assets track prices but do not provide investors the same legal rights as holding the underlying instruments.

Continue Reading

Politics

Rachel Reeves hints at tax rises in autumn budget after welfare bill U-turn

Published

on

By

Rachel Reeves hints at tax rises in autumn budget after welfare bill U-turn

Rachel Reeves has hinted that taxes are likely to be raised this autumn after a major U-turn on the government’s controversial welfare bill.

Sir Keir Starmer’s Universal Credit and Personal Independent Payment Bill passed through the House of Commons on Tuesday after multiple concessions and threats of a major rebellion.

MPs ended up voting for only one part of the plan: a cut to universal credit (UC) sickness benefits for new claimants from £97 a week to £50 from 2026/7.

Initially aimed at saving £5.5bn, it now leaves the government with an estimated £5.5bn black hole – close to breaching Ms Reeves’s fiscal rules set out last year.

Read more:
Yet another fiscal ‘black hole’? Here’s why this one matters

Success or failure: One year of Keir in nine charts

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Rachel Reeves’s fiscal dilemma

In an interview with The Guardian, the chancellor did not rule out tax rises later in the year, saying there were “costs” to watering down the welfare bill.

“I’m not going to [rule out tax rises], because it would be irresponsible for a chancellor to do that,” Ms Reeves told the outlet.

More on Rachel Reeves

“We took the decisions last year to draw a line under unfunded commitments and economic mismanagement.

“So we’ll never have to do something like that again. But there are costs to what happened.”

Meanwhile, The Times reported that, ahead of the Commons vote on the welfare bill, Ms Reeves told cabinet ministers the decision to offer concessions would mean taxes would have to be raised.

The outlet reported that the chancellor said the tax rises would be smaller than those announced in the 2024 budget, but that she is expected to have to raise tens of billions more.

It comes after Ms Reeves said she was “totally” up to continuing as chancellor after appearing tearful at Prime Minister’s Questions.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Why was the chancellor crying at PMQs?

Criticising Sir Keir for the U-turns on benefit reform during PMQs, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said the chancellor looked “absolutely miserable”, and questioned whether she would remain in post until the next election.

Sir Keir did not explicitly say that she would, and Ms Badenoch interjected to say: “How awful for the chancellor that he couldn’t confirm that she would stay in place.”

In her first comments after the incident, Ms Reeves said she was having a “tough day” before adding: “People saw I was upset, but that was yesterday.

“Today’s a new day and I’m just cracking on with the job.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Reeves is ‘totally’ up for the job

Sir Keir also told Sky News’ political editor Beth Rigby on Thursday that he “didn’t appreciate” that Ms Reeves was crying in the Commons.

“In PMQs, it is bang, bang, bang,” he said. “That’s what it was yesterday.

“And therefore, I was probably the last to appreciate anything else going on in the chamber, and that’s just a straightforward human explanation, common sense explanation.”

Continue Reading

Trending