By Was - 16 Sep 24 1:04 PM
It is, as you put it, quite deliberate. However, as a techie, I think it is a reasonable word to describe the situation without requiring the law to maintain a list of different terms to describe all situations which would necessarily also have to try to predict future technology. You can't view an image without it being "made" in some shape or form. If a person is not charged with possession, then that difference will be explained to the jury before deliberation. I pled guilty (no possession or distribution charges) and in my case I'm pretty sure the judge understood the difference.
Back to Huw...
6 months suspended is probably what I would have predicted after seeing the prosecution case and the defence mitigation reporting this morning. 6 months will mean he is on the SOR for 10 years.
|
By punter99 - 17 Sep 24 10:50 AM
The Huw Edwards sentencing was broadly in line with what we might expect for these offences nowadays. However, there were some unusual elements to it.
First, it was dealt with at the magistrates and not referred to the crown court. If there were only Cat C images involved, then that would be understandable, because the maximum sentence for possession is 1 year and that's within the magistrates powers. But there were Cat A images too, which means the maximum sentence is 3 years. So it should have gone to Crown Court. The fact that the magistrate didn't send it up, would suggest they had already decided what the sentence was going to be, before having heard all the evidence.
Second, there was no SHPO. I suppose this emphasises the importance of having a good legal team, because his barrister questioned the need for one, which most barristers sadly fail to do. I thought it was amusing to hear the media report that Edwards "glared" at the prosecution, when they described him as a risk to children, because it's the job of the CPS to make things sound as bad as possible and to exaggerate any possible threat. The chief magistrate said that it was not necessary to subject Edwards to the additional SHPO conditions, given the progress towards rehabilitation already underway. That is interesting, because many of those sentenced are already on the road to rehabilitation, but still they get given SHPOs.
The fact is, that we know almost all of those convicted of image offences, pose no risk to children. Most will not re offend, so an SHPO is not necessary in almost all of these cases, apart from the most high risk individuals. The barrister said the SHPO was not required because the offences took place a long time ago. That's true of nearly everybody who goes to court. But what's different about the Huw Edwards situation, is that we do have allegations of him contacting a 17 year old and offering money for images, as well as allegations of inappropriate behaviour at work. It appears these allegations were not considered, as part of his risk assessment.
On the face of it, there are good reasons to believe that Huw Edwards might be at risk of committing contact offences, unlike most image offenders, so he should have been given an SHPO with contact restrictions, but now he has no restrictions at all on his internet use, or where he can go.
Third, there were extensive psychological reports, detailing issues with his father, impulsivity and alcohol misuse. Again, if you were to look into the background of most image offenders, you would find mental health problems, it's just that most of us cannot afford to pay for a psychiatric report.
On the whole, it was well reported, including all of the defence team's mitigation, and not just the prosecution's case. But why was he described as a convicted sex offender, while the person who sent the images to him was labelled a convicted paedophile? Surely either both men are sex offenders, or both are paedophiles?
Also, why did the police release a custody photo of Edwards, when everybody already knows what he looks like?
There will inevitably be a debate about soft sentencing, with many pointing out that people who said nasty things on social media, during the recent riots, were given jail time, yet Edwards was not. Again, we know why this happens, because jailing everyone convicted of image offences would mean a big and more importantly a long term increase in the prison population, and the riots were most likely a one off event. It's just a numbers game at the end of the day.
|
By AB2014 - 17 Sep 24 11:58 AM
Actually, beings sentenced to six months suspended means he will be on the SOR for seven years, not ten.
On the question of whether he should have been sent to prison, there has been guidance for some time now that any sentence of a year or less should be suspended. Given the current situation with prison capacity, there are more arguments for suspension rather than imprisonment, and it does mean that the six months can be activated at any time in the next two years. If that ever happens, I think that would mean he could then enjoy post-licence supervision by probation before experiencing the tender mercies of the police.
I'm not surprised that his barrister made strong arguments against an SHPO, as he would be paying them to do that. Legal Aid barristers and solicitors don't necessarily have the time to do stuff like that, regardless of their views on the subject. Many other offenders are surely in a similar situation with regard to their mental health, but they are in a different league when it comes to Legal Aid funding.
|
By Was - 17 Sep 24 3:01 PM
+xThere will inevitably be a debate about soft sentencing, with many pointing out that people who said nasty things on social media, during the recent riots, were given jail time, yet Edwards was not.
The law has always taken rioting more seriously. Any incitement was always going to be stomped down hard, whether a keyboard warrior or an actual participant.
Whilst the current state of the probation service is a disgrace, there is always the belief that online offences can be "managed" which doesn't apply to mobs.
|
By punter99 - 18 Sep 24 10:33 AM
+xActually, beings sentenced to six months suspended means he will be on the SOR for seven years, not ten. On the question of whether he should have been sent to prison, there has been guidance for some time now that any sentence of a year or less should be suspended. Given the current situation with prison capacity, there are more arguments for suspension rather than imprisonment, and it does mean that the six months can be activated at any time in the next two years. If that ever happens, I think that would mean he could then enjoy post-licence supervision by probation before experiencing the tender mercies of the police. I'm not surprised that his barrister made strong arguments against an SHPO, as he would be paying them to do that. Legal Aid barristers and solicitors don't necessarily have the time to do stuff like that, regardless of their views on the subject. Many other offenders are surely in a similar situation with regard to their mental health, but they are in a different league when it comes to Legal Aid funding.
I'm not convinced that legal aid barristers don't have the time to argue against an SHPO. Mine spent a long time quibbling with the judge over the exact wording of it. I think this has more to do with the culture surrounding these offences. It's become the norm for judges to impose SHPOs without really thinking about it. That may have something to do with the pressure they are under to hear so many cases. It was obvious in my case, that the judge didn't really want to argue about the SHPO, he wanted to move on to the next hearing. In the end, he just ordered the CPS to rewrite the SHPO and send him a copy later.
There is an issue with the SHPOs being poorly written by the CPS and dropped on the defence at the very last moment. The barrister has to think about mitigating that, on top of whatever mitigation they have already prepared. The difference in the Huw Edwards case was that they had a lot of mitigation to put forward. Detailed psychological reports that I bet the magistrate didn't even read. They took the psychologists word for it that he was getting better and therefore was no longer a risk.
The problem for other people who don't have these reports, is that they have no proof that they are getting better. They may have been to therapy, but probably don't have anything in writing from the therapist to say how well they are doing.
|
By AB2014 - 19 Sep 24 8:59 AM
+x+xActually, beings sentenced to six months suspended means he will be on the SOR for seven years, not ten. On the question of whether he should have been sent to prison, there has been guidance for some time now that any sentence of a year or less should be suspended. Given the current situation with prison capacity, there are more arguments for suspension rather than imprisonment, and it does mean that the six months can be activated at any time in the next two years. If that ever happens, I think that would mean he could then enjoy post-licence supervision by probation before experiencing the tender mercies of the police. I'm not surprised that his barrister made strong arguments against an SHPO, as he would be paying them to do that. Legal Aid barristers and solicitors don't necessarily have the time to do stuff like that, regardless of their views on the subject. Many other offenders are surely in a similar situation with regard to their mental health, but they are in a different league when it comes to Legal Aid funding. I'm not convinced that legal aid barristers don't have the time to argue against an SHPO. Mine spent a long time quibbling with the judge over the exact wording of it. I think this has more to do with the culture surrounding these offences. It's become the norm for judges to impose SHPOs without really thinking about it. That may have something to do with the pressure they are under to hear so many cases. It was obvious in my case, that the judge didn't really want to argue about the SHPO, he wanted to move on to the next hearing. In the end, he just ordered the CPS to rewrite the SHPO and send him a copy later. There is an issue with the SHPOs being poorly written by the CPS and dropped on the defence at the very last moment. The barrister has to think about mitigating that, on top of whatever mitigation they have already prepared. The difference in the Huw Edwards case was that they had a lot of mitigation to put forward. Detailed psychological reports that I bet the magistrate didn't even read. They took the psychologists word for it that he was getting better and therefore was no longer a risk. The problem for other people who don't have these reports, is that they have no proof that they are getting better. They may have been to therapy, but probably don't have anything in writing from the therapist to say how well they are doing.
In terms of time, I wasn't thinking about the time they spend in court. I was thinking about the time they have to prepare. I know they were published a while ago, but The Secret Barrister and also In Your Defence by Sarah Langford are quite revealing, and Sarah Langford's book also shows the effect that certain accusations can have on the accused. Beyond that, there probably is a culture of disapproval, especially among magistrates. I used to work with one and he told me that he decided what verdict and punishment he has in mind before anyone has said anything.
The guidelines on SHPOs are quite clear - they should not be suddenly revealed at the last minute, they should be given to the defence at least two days before the hearing. Of course, no court is going to reject one on that basis, although it would certainly make the CPS sharpen up, because certain tabloids would instantly be labelling them as Enemies of the People. So, they fail to enforce their own guidelines. Easy solution? Make it clear to the prosecution that they need to produce the SHPO text at least two days before the hearing, or no SHPO. Won't happen, though, as there is no public sympathy.
|
By JASB - 20 Sep 24 1:46 PM
+x+x+xActually, beings sentenced to six months suspended means he will be on the SOR for seven years, not ten. On the question of whether he should have been sent to prison, there has been guidance for some time now that any sentence of a year or less should be suspended. Given the current situation with prison capacity, there are more arguments for suspension rather than imprisonment, and it does mean that the six months can be activated at any time in the next two years. If that ever happens, I think that would mean he could then enjoy post-licence supervision by probation before experiencing the tender mercies of the police. I'm not surprised that his barrister made strong arguments against an SHPO, as he would be paying them to do that. Legal Aid barristers and solicitors don't necessarily have the time to do stuff like that, regardless of their views on the subject. Many other offenders are surely in a similar situation with regard to their mental health, but they are in a different league when it comes to Legal Aid funding. I'm not convinced that legal aid barristers don't have the time to argue against an SHPO. Mine spent a long time quibbling with the judge over the exact wording of it. I think this has more to do with the culture surrounding these offences. It's become the norm for judges to impose SHPOs without really thinking about it. That may have something to do with the pressure they are under to hear so many cases. It was obvious in my case, that the judge didn't really want to argue about the SHPO, he wanted to move on to the next hearing. In the end, he just ordered the CPS to rewrite the SHPO and send him a copy later. There is an issue with the SHPOs being poorly written by the CPS and dropped on the defence at the very last moment. The barrister has to think about mitigating that, on top of whatever mitigation they have already prepared. The difference in the Huw Edwards case was that they had a lot of mitigation to put forward. Detailed psychological reports that I bet the magistrate didn't even read. They took the psychologists word for it that he was getting better and therefore was no longer a risk. The problem for other people who don't have these reports, is that they have no proof that they are getting better. They may have been to therapy, but probably don't have anything in writing from the therapist to say how well they are doing. In terms of time, I wasn't thinking about the time they spend in court. I was thinking about the time they have to prepare. I know they were published a while ago, but The Secret Barrister and also In Your Defence by Sarah Langford are quite revealing, and Sarah Langford's book also shows the effect that certain accusations can have on the accused. Beyond that, there probably is a culture of disapproval, especially among magistrates. I used to work with one and he told me that he decided what verdict and punishment he has in mind before anyone has said anything. The guidelines on SHPOs are quite clear - they should not be suddenly revealed at the last minute, they should be given to the defence at least two days before the hearing. Of course, no court is going to reject one on that basis, although it would certainly make the CPS sharpen up, because certain tabloids would instantly be labelling them as Enemies of the People. So, they fail to enforce their own guidelines. Easy solution? Make it clear to the prosecution that they need to produce the SHPO text at least two days before the hearing, or no SHPO. Won't happen, though, as there is no public sympathy.
Hi
I am not sure if you listened to the Radio 5 Nicky Campbell show on the 17th? To be honest I listened to some then decided to just download the Podcast.
In the first slots there was a lot of "official" explanations surrounding many of the points raised in this topic; however not the one why didn't it go to the Crown Court.
For instance he was giving a SHPO as the Magistrate thought he had shown already he willingness to rehabilitate and in fact was already on that journey so didn't need one.
Listen to the PO gent as he was a strong believer in the true that rehabilitation is possible.
Nicky Campbell showed his true opinions in questioning the honesty of an ex Image offender but immediately believing "EVERYTHING" a self acclaimed "pedo hunter" said.
It is worth listening to though I am sure many will feel aggravated at the opinions and words spoken by some contributors.
|
By Was - 21 Sep 24 1:40 PM
+xListen to the PO gent as he was a strong believer in the true that rehabilitation is possible. Nicky Campbell showed his true opinions in questioning the honesty of an ex Image offender but immediately believing "EVERYTHING" a self acclaimed "pedo hunter" said.
Nicky Campbell has always been a zero tolerance campaigner. Whether we like it or not, it is a perfectly reasonable POV for a person to hold as long as they don't show hypocrisy like James "I Believe Carl Beech" O'Brien does. I have a lot less respect for his two-faced soap box moralising.
And of course, we all know that rehabilitation is possible, or we probably wouldn't be on the Unlock forum, but it is difficult to take part in such programmes with also revealing how we know that rehabilitation is possible!
|
By JASB - 22 Sep 24 4:22 PM
+x+xListen to the PO gent as he was a strong believer in the true that rehabilitation is possible. Nicky Campbell showed his true opinions in questioning the honesty of an ex Image offender but immediately believing "EVERYTHING" a self acclaimed "pedo hunter" said. Nicky Campbell has always been a zero tolerance campaigner. Whether we like it or not, it is a perfectly reasonable POV for a person to hold as long as they don't show hypocrisy like James "I Believe Carl Beech" O'Brien does. I have a lot less respect for his two-faced soap box moralizing. And of course, we all know that rehabilitation is possible, or we probably wouldn't be on the Unlock forum, but it is difficult to take part in such programmes with also revealing how we know that rehabilitation is possible!
Hi
Re NC:
Obviously with his reported childhood trauma he does have an "interest" in discussing this topic but, to be a presenter there has to be a balance else we just end up with "Trump" style talk shows i.e. no debate.
I have called into and spoke on the show on numerous times for discussions on numerous topics and to be blunt, he does has have an agenda to "rile" callers so they are more expressive. That is the aim of these types of shows and hence there and his popularity, which to an extent I have no issue with.
In various topics I have "echoed" the statement that an image offence is not a victimless offence and I have attempted (kindly) to word my opinion in a way not to ostracize anyone further than "society will and does do.
My point is, as you highlighted, the " two-faced soap box moralizing" that I feel he showed and I quoted.
Not withstanding anything else, I do feel his manner and tone was aimed more at influencing his listeners and overall "society", that rehabilitation is not possible for an "SO"!
We know that is not the fact but, this is an example of the barriers we face in rehabilitating "society".
As I suggested, I do think the podcast is worth a listen, even if only to hear a Probation Officer standing firm on "rehabilitation" is possible.
|
By punter99 - 9 Aug 24 10:59 AM
Good to see the forum is back. It's going to be interesting to see how this case is dealt with. Will he get a tougher sentence, for being a high profile and 'trusted' figure? or will his mental health issues result in a lighter sentence? Do the other allegations about his behaviour mean an SHPO with contact restrictions will be imposed?
Personally if I were in his position, I would just leave the country after sentencing, then he wouldn't be subject to any of the restrictions, or home visits etc. There will be limits on where he can travel to, but maybe he already has a second home in France for example.
|
|