The U.K. government has “raised concerns” with the BBC after Huw Edwards, once the broadcaster’s highest-paid news anchor and most recognizable presenter, pleaded guilty to making indecent images of children earlier this week.
The 62-year-old, who led landmark coverage for the BBC including its announcement of Queen Elizabeth II’s death and the London 2012 Olympics, was arrested in November – a development only shared with the public this week – and charged last month. On Wednesday, he made his pleas during a brief hearing at Westminster Magistrates Court in the U.K. capital.
The offenses are alleged to have taken place between 2020 and 2022. Edwards admitted having 41 indecent images of children, sent to him by another man on WhatsApp. This included seven category A images, the most severe classification, two of which showed a child between seven and nine, the court heard.
The Metropolitan Police also revealed the man who sent the images to Edwards was a convicted paedophile. The anchorman, who hosted the BBC’s flagship News at Ten program, arrived at the court expressionless and flanked by eight police officers. He faces a jail sentence.
The U.K.’s top broadcaster is now facing a grilling on just what it knew about Edwards’ behavior and when, as well as why he wasn’t sacked as soon as they were alerted of his arrest. An arrest might not have been sufficient enough to fire him, especially if it later turned out the BBC axed Edwards over claims that weren’t true. But if keeping him on as an employee and continuing to pay his vast salary for five months after the arrest was a call from top execs at the BBC, the optics could lead to some reputational fallout.
The Culture Secretary, Labour’s Lisa Nandy, spoke to BBC director-general Tim Davie on the phone on Thursday to query the organization’s handling of the case. A spokesperson for the U.K.’s Department of Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS) told The Hollywood Reporter on Friday that Nandy is “shocked” by Edwards’ “abhorrent actions”. The DCMS said it is now for the judiciary to decide on “an appropriate sentence” for the former news anchor.
“The BBC is operationally and editorially independent, but given the incredibly serious nature of this issue, the Secretary of State has spoken to the BBC to raise concerns on a number of points regarding the handling of their own investigations into Huw Edwards, what safeguards and processes had been followed in this case, and additionally, what further action may be taken, especially with regard to the handling of licence fee payers’ money,” the spokesperson continued.
Nandy “sought assurance” from Davie that the BBC has robust processes in place regarding non-editorial complaints and the handling of complex contractual matters, “so that in future it can act at pace and be transparent with the public at the earliest opportunity to ensure trust is maintained.”
“She has asked to be kept updated by the BBC on future developments in this particular case.”
The BBC was told by the Metropolitan Police “in strict confidence” that Edwards was arrested in November.
In an interview with BBC News on Thursday, Davie said the corporation had “taken difficult decisions in a fair and judicious manner”. Edwards was, at his peak, paid a salary of £475,000 (around $605,000), but in the months after his suspension received an annual salary of £200,000 ($254,000).
“We knew it was serious, we knew no specifics, apart from the category of the potential offenses,” Davie said. He said bosses at the BBC were not aware of the ages of the children in the images, and when asked why Edwards was not sacked at the time of his arrest, Davie responded: “Because the police came to us and said they need to do their work in total confidence, [and said], ‘please keep this confidential’.”
“We thought long and hard about this. This wasn’t a kneejerk decision. When you think about this in terms of precedent, people do get arrested, and then we’ve had situations where [there are] no charges, and there’s nothing there to be followed up on.” He added that the BBC also had to consider its duty of care to Edwards.
Under British law, images can mean photos or videos. “Making” indecent images covers a range of actions per its legal definition. It can, for example, include opening an email attachment with an image, downloading an image from a website to a screen; storing an image on a computer; accessing a pornographic website in which images appear in “pop-up” windows; or receiving an image via social media, even if unsolicited and if part of a group; as well as live-streaming images of children.
The BBC suspended Edwards in July last year, over allegations, also made by The Sun, that he paid a teenager for sexually explicit photos. Police did not take any action against Edwards relating to those claims, saying there was no evidence that a criminal offense had been committed.
As these allegations emerged, Edwards was confirmed by his wife, Vicky Flind, to be in hospital with “serious” mental health issues last summer. After taking a 10-month leave of absence, Edwards resigned from the BBC in April on medical grounds.
In a separate statement following Edwards’ plea, the BBC said it was “shocked” to hear the details that emerged in court. “There can be no place for such abhorrent behavior and our thoughts are with all those affected,” a spokesperson said on Wednesday.
“The BBC as his employer at the time was made aware in confidence that he had been arrested on suspicion of serious offences and released on bail whilst the police continued their investigation,” the BBC continued. However, no charges had been brought against Edwards at this time and the broadcaster had been aware of significant risk to his health.
The BBC then said it had only learned the conclusion of the police process in the details revealed in court on Wednesday. “If at any point during the period Mr Edwards was employed by the BBC he had been charged, the BBC had determined it would act immediately to dismiss him.”
“In the end, at the point of charge he was no longer an employee of the BBC,” it continued. But during this period and “in the usual way,” the BBC kept its corporate management of these issues separate from its independent editorial functions.
