Mark White reveals shocking detail from Huw Edwards case that will leave you feeling ill
Huw Edwards received a suspended sentence - Mark White reporting
GB News
Watching Huw Edwards regularly glowering at prosecutor Ian Hope, as he set out the Crown's case for more restrictions on the convicted sex offender's internet use, I wasn't convinced the former titan of BBC News was quite as contrite as his barrister assured the court he was in his mitigation speech to the judge.
The prosecution felt there was a real risk Edwards could spiral back into a pattern of offending behaviour, and that a sexual harm prevention order would allow authorities to monitor his online activity.
In the end, Chief Magistrate Paul Goldspring denied that prosecution request - which means authorities won't now be able to restrict or even monitor Edwards' internet use.
He also decided that the 63-year-old should not be sent to prison, and instead his six month jail term was suspended for two years.
Outside court, as people absorbed the news Huw Edwards would not be spending any time behind bars, one person remarked "rich man's justice!".
If I'm honest, I find it hard to argue against claims like that.
Especially when you compare the sentence handed to Edwards with the prison terms slapped on many in the wake of the recent riots.
Some of those offenders were not even directly involved in the trouble. Their crimes were social media posts, seen as inciting violence.
Like the case of 53 year old Julie Sweeney from Cheshire, who posted a Facebook message saying "blow the mosque up" but later deleted that message.
Despite expressing her deep regret for comments she said were completely out of character, and despite being the primary carer for her husband, she was jailed for 15 months.
Huw Edwards attended court on Monday PAWas that post any more harmful than someone viewing child abuse images?
I would say not. Indeed, child protection agencies and victims' groups are very clear that those receiving and viewing child abuse images are perpetuating that cycle of abuse.
Of course, the authorities have argued that the post riots sentencing had to be severe to send a strong message of deterrent.
But wouldn't the jailing of such a high profile figure like Edwards also be a very powerful deterrent to those thinking of viewing sexual images of children?
I've lost count of the number of 'legal experts' I've heard telling various broadcasters today that the sentence handed down to the former BBC star was in line with sentencing guidelines.
That given he was a first time offender, with a history of mental health issues, and pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, a suspended sentence was not at all unusual.
But those same sentencing guidelines were very conveniently put to one side by those judges dealing with the riots offenders.
So what's the difference you might ask? That's where those claiming "rich man's justice!" might have a point.
It's absolutely true that Huw Edwards has a history of mental health issues.
But I wonder how many of those convicted for their part in the riots had issues around their mental health, or a myriad of other background issues that could have helped strengthen their defence.
I suspect very few, if any, had the money and capability to commission the expensive reports the Edwards team were able to use to great effect in their mitigation, presented by a very talented and expensive barrister.
In the end, that defence strategy was very successful. While many riots related offenders are languishing in jail today, Huw Edwards is a free man.
And following the magistrate's ruling, authorities won't now be able to restrict or even monitor his internet use, despite their very real concerns the former BBC star could reoffend.