The Daily Mail’s publisher has “strongly denied” an allegation made by a lawyer for Prince Harry that journalists’ emails and documents had been deleted.

The allegation was subject to a warning by a judge at the latest preliminary hearing in the case brought by a group of high-profile individuals including Harry, campaigner Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Sir Elton John and his husband David Furnish.

They are suing Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) for alleged misuse of private information.

The group has accused the publisher of allegedly carrying out or commissioning unlawful activities, such as hiring private investigators to place listening devices inside cars and burglaries to order.

ANL firmly denies the allegations and is defending the legal claims, with cost budgets for both sides combined totalling more than £38m.

David Sherborne, for the individuals, said in his written submissions that “there have been deletions of some, but not all, of journalists’ emails” at ANL, and that some documents were destroyed during the Leveson Inquiry into phone hacking.

In court, Catrin Evans KC, for ANL, denied the allegation, stating it was a claim of “deliberate tampering with the documents which is of course strongly denied”.

She added: “We regard it as important to put down a marker that it is not appropriate to come to this court, there are clearly going to be further hearings in these proceedings and face allegations like that.

“It is not professionally proper to make them.”

Mr Justice Nicklin said that evidence would need to be provided for such allegations, adding: “This sort of allegation would be career-ending and possibly give rise to potential criminal proceedings, so it could not be more serious.”

Hundreds of people, including the Duke of Sussex, have previously brought legal action against other newspaper publishers over allegations of unlawful information gathering, including related to phone hacking.

Harry was previously awarded £140,600 in damages after suing Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) and faces a trial in January 2025 for his claim against Sun publisher News Group Newspapers (NGN).

Evans said that it would be “wrong” to treat the claims brought against ANL in the same way as cases against those publishers.

She continued: “Critically, the ‘bedrock’ of liability in the MGN and NGN cases consisted of criminal convictions of certain journalists and far-reaching admissions about the extensive use of unlawful acts … there is no similar ‘bedrock’ of matters here.”

Sherborne told the court that the individuals “were, in different ways, each the victim of numerous unlawful acts”, including “illegally intercepting voicemail messages; listening into live landline calls; (and) obtaining private information” between 1993 and 2018.

The court also heard from lawyers for ANL that Lady Lawrence was “alerted” to the potential legal claim by a text message from Prince Harry in January 2022.

Evans said in written submissions: “Litigation appears to have been contemplated by Baroness Lawrence almost immediately after the text was received by her.”

Evans also told the court that Lady Lawrence met with lawyers Harry had been working with a few days later.

However, the barrister later said she has lost “and possibly deleted” the text sent by Harry, and said in court that ANL wanted an “explanation” as “it has not been explained as to the circumstances of the discovery of it being missing”.

Sherborne said in his written submissions that some claimants, including Lady Lawrence, initially declined to provide the information about “personal watershed moments” in their claims, as the demand included “impermissible requests for evidence and privileged information”.

He said: “In general, the claimants refused to provide the information sought, on the basis that it was not reasonably necessary or proportionate to enable the defendant to prepare its case or understand the case it had to meet.”

He said that they then “voluntarily provided” the information earlier in November, and claimed in court that ANL had “accused (Lady Lawrence) of some nefarious intent in that she couldn’t find the message” from the duke.

Sherborne also said that ANL should disclose further documents, including an Excel spreadsheet detailing alleged payments to private investigators between 2005 and 2007, which Evans said was an “entirely premature demand”.

He said they wanted “clear and comprehensive answers to what documents still exist and what documents have been either destroyed or deleted”, and continued: “We have reached the point where we say there should be a clear and comprehensive picture given.”

The hearing before Mr Justice Nicklin and Judge David Cook is due to conclude on Wednesday, with a further hearing expected in May next year.

The full trial of the claims could then be held in early 2026.

The post Mail publisher ‘strongly denies’ lawyer’s allegation of document deletion appeared first on Press Gazette.

Prince Harry “is one of two claimants whose claims are still live” against the publisher of The Sun over allegations of unlawful information gathering, his barrister has told the High Court.

A hearing on Friday was told that the Duke of Sussex, 40, and former Labour deputy leader Tom Watson are now the only people continuing their claims against News Group Newspapers (NGN) after several others settled their cases.

The court was told 39 cases have been settled since a previous hearing in July.

The two remaining cases are expected to go to trial in January 2025, with Harry alleging he was targeted by journalists and private investigators working for NGN, which also published the now-defunct News Of The World.

The publisher has previously denied unlawful activity took place at The Sun.

Speaking on Friday, David Sherborne, for the claimants, said: “The Duke of Sussex is one of two claimants whose claims are still live in this matter.”

He continued: “The reduction of the live claims to just two is a pretty recent development.”

A spokesperson for NGN said: “In 2011 an apology was published by NGN to victims of voicemail interception by the News of the World. The company publicly committed to paying financial compensation and since then has paid settlements to those with proper claims. 

“In some disputed cases, it has made commercial sense to come to a settlement agreement before trial to bring a resolution to the matter.

“As we reach the tail end of the litigation, NGN is drawing a line under the disputed matters. The civil proceedings have been running for more than a decade and deal with events 13 to 28 years ago. It is common practice, and indeed encouraged in litigation, to seek to settle claims outside court where both parties agree without the cost of a trial.”

Prince Harry and Sun publisher battle over email access

The two sides have returned to court in London asking a judge to rule on preliminary issues before the trial next year, with Lord Watson in attendance at the hearing.

This includes whether Harry can be given access to “relevant emails sent between five email accounts of NGN employees and five employees of the Royal Household” between January 2013 and September 2019, which Sherborne said would be “highly relevant” to his case.

In written submissions, the barrister said that the NGN employees included Rebekah Brooks, the CEO of News UK from September 2015, Robert Thomson, the CEO of News Corp from 2013, and Mike Darcey, the CEO of News UK until September 2015.

The Royal Household employees “are those involved in Royal Communications and the Private Secretaries to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II”.

He said: “Emails between NGN and the Palace would be highly relevant in terms of providing the full picture not only as to the actual knowledge of the claimant but also as to the position in relation to constructive knowledge, based on what the Palace was being told by NGN.”

Anthony Hudson KC, for NGN, said in his written submissions that the bid to see the emails was opposed.

He said: “The documents sought are not relevant to the pleaded issues in the Duke of Sussex’s case, are not necessary to ensure a fair trial will take place and are not likely to make a real difference to the prospect of settlement of the claim; and, moreover, the proposed searches would be disproportionate and would not save costs.”

Judge ‘disappointed’ with progress of case

The trial is expected to last between six and eight weeks, the court heard, with a further hearing due to be held in December.

The judge overseeing the case, Mr Justice Fancourt, has previously said the case resembles a campaign between “two obdurate but well-resourced armies”.

He added on Friday: “It is disappointing to me that the parties have been unable to progress things in the way that the court would expect.

“It is unsatisfactory that so little progress has been made. There needs to be further work done on both sides.”

Many others have settled their claims in recent years including actor Hugh Grant, actress Sienna Miller, ex-footballer Paul Gascoigne, comic Catherine Tate and Spice Girl Melanie Chisholm.

At a hearing in April, the High Court in London heard that Grant had settled his case against NGN because of the risk of a £10m legal bill if his case went to trial.

Sherborne said at the earlier hearing that “the Duke of Sussex is subject to the same issues that Sienna Miller and Hugh Grant have been subject to, which is that the offers are made that make it impossible for them to go ahead”.

Grant said he was offered “an enormous sum of money to keep this matter out of court” that he did not want to accept.

The post Prince Harry and Tom Watson only remaining claimants against Sun publisher appeared first on Press Gazette.

Former private investigator Glenn Mulcaire, who admitted hacking voicemails including those of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler, has had a bid to challenge some of his convictions dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

Mulcaire was given a six-month prison sentence in 2007 for hacking offences committed while working for News Group Newspapers (NGN), the publisher of the now-defunct News of the World.

In 2014 he was given another six-month jail term, suspended for 12 months, after admitting four more hacking charges, including intercepting the voicemails of 13-year-old Milly, who was murdered by Levi Bellfield in 2002.

On Wednesday, Mulcaire’s barristers asked the Court of Appeal for the go-ahead to challenge the second set of convictions, claiming they were “unsafe”.

But three judges dismissed his appeal bid, stating that the case was “not arguable”, had “no prospect of success”, and had been brought too late.

Lord Justice Holroyde said: “The applicant has shown no good reason why such a long extension of time should be granted.”

He continued: “Even if we could be persuaded to grant the extension of time, it would serve no purpose because an appeal against convictions cannot succeed.”

Mulcaire, who was also known as Trigger, joined the News of the World in September 2001 and was responsible for hacking multiple people, including members of the royal family, celebrities and politicians.

In his ruling, Lord Justice Holroyde, sitting with Mr Justice Swift and Mr Justice Johnson, said Mulcaire was first jailed in 2006 after pleading guilty in November that year to conspiring to intercept telephone calls of members of the royal household and five counts of unlawfully intercepting the voicemails of other individuals.

He was charged in 2011 with three counts of conspiracy to unlawfully intercept communications, including the voicemails of people associated with former home secretary Charles Clarke and with unlawfully intercepting Milly’s voicemails.

He pleaded guilty to the offences in 2013 and was sentenced the following year, with his barristers at the sentencing telling the court that Mulcaire had faced bankruptcy and had become the “personification” of the News of the World scandal in the media.

NGN has previously said it issued an unreserved apology to victims of voicemail interception by the News of the World in 2011 and has since paid damages to “those with proper claims”.

Glenn Mulcaire says he felt ‘pressure to plead guilty’

On Tuesday, barrister James Manning told the hearing in London that Mulcaire was “wrongly advised” by his former legal team and “felt directly the pressure to plead guilty” as a result.

He said the appeal bid was being brought several years later because documents which he claimed supported Mulcaire’s case had “only recently come to light”.

“This applicant asserts that his convictions are unsafe, notwithstanding his guilty pleas, really because he pleaded guilty in circumstances where he was wrongly advised, badly advised, and did not understand the information that was being given,” he said.

“There was a claim against his solicitor. That was settled and, in the course of that case, documents came to light… which form the basis of this appeal.”

He added: “He knew what had happened… but in terms of having evidence to support his position and corroborate his recollections, [that] has only recently come to light.”

But Lord Justice Holroyde said Mulcaire’s appeal bid “is largely based on a misunderstanding” and that the judges “can see no arguable reason” to doubt that “no such advice” to plead guilty was given.

In a statement outside the Royal Courts of Justice, Mulcaire said the decision to charge him a second time was “deeply unfair” and that his legal advice was “fatally flawed”.

He said: “I’m disappointed in the judges’ decision to refuse my permission to appeal.

“I call now for the Government to implement the second part of the Leveson Inquiry.

“The public need to know what happened and who was responsible. I would be willing to assist such an inquiry and provide evidence.”

He added: “I served my time in 2007 and had started to rebuild my life over the subsequent few years. That was blown apart in 2011.

“I have found it almost impossible to find work since. For example, I recently qualified as a first responder in emergency care, but no-one has been willing to hire me.

“I still believe that the legal advice I was given was wrong.

“The effect of that flawed advice has been catastrophic for me and my family. We lost our house. We are still homeless.”

The post Phone-hacker Glenn Mulcaire loses bid to appeal against convictions appeared first on Press Gazette.

The amount former MP Charlie Elphicke has to pay The Sunday Times in legal costs has been reduced after a new judgment that found the publisher failed to “preserve evidence”.

Elphicke, who was jailed for two years in September 2020 after he was convicted of sexually assaulting two women, sued Times Media Ltd for libel over three articles published in The Sunday Times in 2018, including two which referenced an investigation of rape allegations against him.

The former Conservative Party MP for Dover ended his defamation case before it went to trial in 2022, but asked to avoid paying the costs of multiple applications made by Times Media, saying the publisher had “wiped” evidence.

Times Media, which defended the libel claim, made a bid for Elphicke to pay costs.

In a 51-page ruling on Monday, former judge Victoria McCloud found Times Media failed to “preserve evidence” in the case and that it was “appropriate to mark the seriousness” by reducing the amount that Elphicke must pay to 80%.

McCloud said Elphicke argued at a hearing in June 2023 that Times Media “had lost or destroyed critical information” that related to the allegations it made against him, including “the most serious matter [that] was said to be the loss or destruction of a journalist’s electronic telephone information”.

In the ruling, McCloud said “the phone material would have clarified… whether for example the complainant was being inconsistent or whether words were being put into her mouth or whether there was another motivating factor such as money, rejection, or pressure from anyone else”.

The former judge added that Times Media had “ample opportunity to preserve the electronic information concerned”.

A hearing in June 2023 heard that Times Media’s lawyers said its “journalist’s loss of phone was inadvertent” and that Elphicke had “chosen not to pursue issues relating to the defendant’s disclosure before discontinuing his claim”.

According to the judgment, the publisher argued that Elphicke “had litigated his claim aggressively, making serious allegations against the defendant and its journalists, its witness and the complainant”.

But McCloud ruled that Times Media had “a duty to preserve evidence when on notice of proceedings or likely proceedings”.

She added that “failures to preserve evidence when on notice to do so, and wrongful collateral use of witness statements” are “not matters which require significant consideration of documents and attendance notes: they go to the heart of the fairness of proceedings”.

Elphicke was found guilty of three counts of sexual assault committed in 2007 and in 2016 after a trial at Southwark Crown Court in 2019.

After the ruling, Elphicke said the judgment was “damning”.

He added: “It’s unprecedented for any media business to be caught misconducting themselves like this.”

Times Media has been approached for comment.

Speaking about the Elphicke case and the legal system under which it was brought, journalist Gabriel Pogrund previously told Press Gazette: “He sued us before, during and after his time living at Her Majesty’s pleasure in prison, and I would pose questions about the legal system that enables that to happen.”

The post Charlie Elphicke’s legal bill cut after Sunday Times libel battle appeared first on Press Gazette.

GB News has been given the green light to challenge a finding that it breached Ofcom’s rules in a Q&A programme with then-prime minister Rishi Sunak.

A High Court judge did refuse to temporarily block Ofcom from sanctioning the channel, but said the watchdog has already pledged not to publish its sanction until the case has been heard in full.

Ofcom said in May it was considering a statutory sanction against GB News for “serious and repeated” breaches of due impartiality rules under the Broadcasting Code.

Its potential sanctions include: telling a broadcaster not to repeat certain content, forcing it to air a correction or statement of the Ofcom findings, a financial penalty, and ultimately shortening, suspending or revoking a broadcast licence.

The sanctions process began after Ofcom decided that an hour-long live programme called The People’s Forum, in which Sunak answered audience questions, failed to meet impartiality rules because the then-PM was not sufficiently challenged.

GB News had intended for Labour’s views to be represented in a follow-up programme with Sir Keir Starmer but this had not been announced publicly at the time of the Sunak Q&A and it was then cancelled after Ofcom’s intervention.

The channel asked the High Court to order that Ofcom could not complete its “sanctions process” amid a legal challenge over the regulator’s finding about the Sunak programme.

Barristers for GB News argued that the publication of the sanction would cause “irreparable damage” to its reputation.

In a ruling on Friday Mr Justice Chamberlain said that the “likely impact” on the channel had been “overstated”.

He did however give the channel the green light to challenge the finding that it had breached Ofcom’s rules in the High Court, and added that Ofcom has already pledged not to publish its sanction until the case had been heard.

Giving judgment at a hearing in London, the judge said: “There is significant public interest in allowing Ofcom to complete its process and publish its decision.”

He continued that the benefits of pausing the sanctions process were “firmly outweighed” by allowing it to continue, which he said would “promote public confidence” and “reinforce the importance of complying with the code”.

But he said that GB News’s case was “reasonably arguable” and its arguments “raise grounds of considerable public importance” which “should be considered at a substantive hearing”.

Tom Hickman KC, for GB News, argued on Thursday that Ofcom had unlawfully found that the breach was “serious and repeated”, and that deciding on and publishing a sanction during the legal challenge would cause “irreparable damage”.

Anya Proops KC, for Ofcom, said in written submissions that the breach was the channel’s twelfth since March last year and that it was “not arguable” that it had “erred in law” through its decision.

She continued that the bid to stop Ofcom from publishing the sanction was based on an “inevitably speculative presumption” of what the sanction would be, and that claims the channel would suffer reputational harm “do not withstand scrutiny”.

A further hearing in the case is expected to be held at a later date.

GB News statement in response to court ruling on Ofcom battle

GB News chief executive Angelos Frangopoulos said in response to the ruling: “We are extremely pleased the Court has recognised the merits of our legal challenge and approved our case to proceed to the next stage.

“We have believed from the very start that the People’s Forum was an important piece of public interest programming, and that it complied with the Broadcasting Code.  It was designed to allow members of the public to put their own questions directly to leading politicians. The programme with the Prime Minister was always intended to be part of a series of programmes, unfortunately the commencement by Ofcom of an investigation into the programme meant that future programmes were suspended and could not be broadcast. 

“GB News choses to be regulated and we understand our obligations under the Code, but Ofcom is obliged by law to uphold freedom of expression and apply its rules fairly and lawfully. We believe some of its decisions in relation to GB News have been neither fair nor lawful and the court has recognised that there are serious arguable issues to be determined in this respect.  As the People’s Channel we will continue to champion freedom; for our viewers, for our listeners, and for everyone in the United Kingdom.

“The Court has also made clear that any sanction which Ofcom may go on to impose on GB News would need to be expressed as subject to the outcome of GB News’ legal challenge.”

The post GB News allowed to challenge Ofcom ruling at full High Court hearing appeared first on Press Gazette.

Prince Harry’s legal action against the publisher of The Sun resembles a campaign between “two obdurate but well-resourced armies” that is taking up “more than an appropriate” amount of court time, a High Court judge has said.

The Duke of Sussex, 40, alleges he was targeted by journalists and private investigators working for News Group Newspapers (NGN), which also published the now-defunct News Of The World.

He is among a number of people to bring cases against the publisher over allegations of unlawful information gathering.

A full trial of some of the cases is due to be held at the High Court in January next year.

The publisher has previously denied unlawful activity took place at The Sun.

In a preliminary ruling on Friday, Mr Justice Fancourt resolved disputes between the legal teams for Harry and NGN over amendments to the duke’s pleaded case.

The judge wrote: “I have previously indicated to the parties that this individual claim… although it raises important issues, is starting to absorb more than an appropriate share of the court’s resources, contrary to the requirement in the overriding objective to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost.

“It is now doing so.

“The claim at times resembles more an entrenched front in a campaign between two obdurate but well-resourced armies than a claim for misuse of private information.

“It is unsatisfactory to say the least that the court should be faced a second time with having to resolve such a large extent of disputed material on amendments to a statement of case.”

In his 12-page written ruling, the judge said he had “perhaps unduly optimistically, expected that the residual disputed material would be limited” in light of his decisions in May over how Harry could argue his case.

He added: “But, in the event, I am faced with a table of disputes running to 44 pages, with 49 separate items or groups of items disputed, only a handful of which were eventually agreed, and 34 pages of dense submissions by NGN in support of their objections…”

The judge granted the duke’s lawyers permission to make certain amendments to how his case was put, while also upholding some of NGN’s objections.

“It is clearly imperative that the content of the pleaded case is resolved as soon as possible,” he said.

The judge said he had made his ruling “as short as reasonably possible” in light of the “urgency” over the case and trial preparations.

He added: “I have also previously indicated that this claim will not be adjourned and will be either tried in January 2025 or settled, since it was issued as far back as September 2019 and has been stood out of eligibility for two previous listed trial dates. That remains the position.”

The post Harry vs Sun publisher: Battle between ‘two obdurate but well-resourced armies’ appeared first on Press Gazette.

GB News has asked a High Court judge to temporarily block Ofcom from sanctioning it for what the regulator says would be the channel’s twelfth breach of its code in less than two years.

The channel is seeking to challenge Ofcom’s provisional decision that a Q&A with then-prime minister Rishi Sunak, which aired on 12 February, was a “serious” breach of its rules, and that attempts to adhere to them were “wholly insufficient”.

In a hearing on Thursday, lawyers for the broadcaster said that the regulator had acted unlawfully by finding that the breach was “serious and repeated”, and asked a judge to pause Ofcom’s “sanctions process”, pending it getting the green light to challenge the watchdog’s decision.

Mr Justice Chamberlain will rule on whether GB News can challenge the decision, and whether Ofcom should be blocked from handing down its sanction in the meantime.

Tom Hickman KC, for the channel, said: “We say that by launching an investigation within three days, Ofcom failed to provide GB News a reasonable and fair opportunity to comply with [Ofcom’s rules].”

He continued: “It is well arguable that there is nothing that suggests Ofcom had any due regard to the impact of commencing an investigation or fully appreciated that it was possible at all for GB News to comply with [the rules].”

The programme at the centre of the case, titled People’s Forum: The Prime Minister, saw Sunak answer questions from a studio audience and a presenter.

Hickman said in written submissions that the presenter “made clear” that it was the channel’s intention to hold a similar interview with the Labour leader, Sir Keir Starmer, but this did not take place.

Three days after the show aired, Ofcom told GB News that it was investigating the programme over a possible breach of its rules. It then publicised the investigation on 19 February.

In a statement on its website on 20 May, Ofcom said that it believed the programme “broke broadcasting due impartiality rules” and that it was “starting the process for consideration of a statutory sanction” against GB News.

The regulator said it received 547 complaints about the hour-long programme and that it found that the programme had not “challenged [Sunak] or otherwise referred to significant alternative views”, and that GB News should have “taken additional steps” to ensure impartiality.

Ofcom can apply a range of sanctions to broadcasters that breach its code, including fines, directions not to repeat content or to broadcast a correction, and suspending licences.

The sanction for the GB News breach has not yet been published, but Ofcom provided a “preliminary view” to the channel in June this year.

Hickman said in written submissions that Ofcom pledged last month not to publish the sanction before Thursday’s hearing and that publishing it would cause “irreparable damage” to the channel’s reputation.

But Anya Proops KC, for Ofcom, said in written submissions that the breach was the channel’s twelfth since March last year and that it was “not arguable” that it had “erred in law” through its decision.

She continued that the bid to stop Ofcom from publishing the sanction was based on an “inevitably speculative presumption” of what the sanction would be, and that claims the channel would suffer reputational harm “do not withstand scrutiny”.

She said: “Enabling a broadcaster to pause Ofcom’s enforcement actions by challenging the underlying breach decision would have a seriously detrimental impact on Ofcom’s ability to discharge its statutory functions, and by extension on the weighty public interests served by the discharge of those functions.

“Even if publication of a sanction decision would cause some measure of harm to GB News, that harm is inevitably outweighed by the powerful countervailing public interest in ensuring the effective and timely regulation of broadcasters by Ofcom, and, relatedly, the maintenance of public confidence in such regulation.”

Mr Justice Chamberlain said he will hand down his judgment at 12pm on Friday.

The post GB News asks High Court to block Ofcom sanctions for alleged rules breach appeared first on Press Gazette.

Former BBC News presenter Huw Edwards has been sentenced to six months’ imprisonment suspended for two years after admitting accessing indecent images of children.

He will also be subject to 25 rehabilitation sessions and be placed on the sex offender treatment programme for 40 days.

In July Edwards admitted three charges of “making” indecent photographs after he was sent 41 illegal images by convicted paedophile Alex Williams over Whatsapp.

Westminster Magistrates’ Court heard on Monday that the 63-year-old was “truly sorry” for how he has “damaged his family and his loved ones”, and for committing the offences.

The court also heard Edwards had told Williams to “go on” when asked if he wanted “naughty pics and vids” of somebody described as young.

He sent hundreds of pounds after Williams asked for a “Christmas gift after all the hot videos”, the court was told.

Prosecutor Ian Hope said: “Alex Williams says he wants some Air Force 1 trainers that cost around £100, and Mr Edwards offers to send him £200.”

Defence barrister Philip Evans KC said Edwards did not make payments in order to receive indecent images of children, telling the court: “Mr Edwards did not make payments in order for images to be sent to him, and he certainly did not make payments in order that indecent images would be sent to him.”

Edwards wrote “yes xxx” when he was asked by Williams if he wanted sexual images of a person whose “age could be discerned as being between 14 and 16”, the court heard.

The judge sentencing Edwards said his “long-earned reputation is in tatters”.

Chief Magistrate, district judge Paul Goldspring, said: “Perhaps it does not need saying but you are of previous good character.”

The judge said he accepts Edwards had been of “exemplary” good character “having enjoyed a very successful career in the media”.

“It’s obvious that until now you were very highly regarded by the public,” he continued, adding that Edwards was “perhaps the most recognised newsreader-journalist”.

“It is not an exaggeration to say your long-earned reputation is in tatters,” the judge said.

Going through the mitigating factors in the case, Goldspring said he believed the former broadcaster’s remorse was genuine and that his mental health at the time of the offences could have impaired his decision-making.

But the judge added that the financial and reputational damage Edwards suffered was “the natural consequence of your behaviour which you brought upon yourself”.

He continued: “I am of the clear view that you do not present a risk or danger to the public at large, specifically to children.

“There is a realistic prospect of rehabilitation.”

The judge declined to make a sexual harm prevention order against Edwards.

Evans, defending, said Edwards “did not gain any gratification” from indecent images.

Huw Edwards said ‘go on’ to ‘naughty pics and vids’

Opening the case against the veteran broadcaster, Hope, prosecuting, said: “It is clear from the face of the Whatsapp chat recovered that a deal of the chat between Alex Williams and Mr Edwards was sexual in nature.

“It is also clear that Mr Edwards was paying not insignificant sums of money – low hundreds of pounds on an occasional basis – to Alex Williams which Mr Williams directly asked for on several occasions, as gifts or presents, apparently off the back of sending pornographic images to Mr Edwards, about which images they chatted.

“Alex Williams has stated that the money was more generally to support him at university and amounted to around £1,000 to £1,500.”

Hope continued: “From that chat in December 2020, Alex Williams said that he had ‘a file of vids and pics for you of someone special’.

“Mr Edwards immediately queried who the subject was and was then sent three images of seemingly the same person, from two of which images the subject’s age could be discerned as being between 14 and 16.

“These two were category C indecent images of children in which the child was exposing his penis.

“Alex Williams stated that he had ‘12 videos and 42 pics I’ve sent you a video of him before’.

“Shortly after Alex Williams asked: ‘want me to send you the full file?’ Mr Edwards responded ‘Yes xxx…’ immediately following which Alex Williams sent to Mr Edwards around 30 attachments, about half of which were category C indecent images of children.”

Hope said Edwards did not respond after convicted paedophile Williams sent him a sexual video of children aged around seven to nine and 11 to 13.

The prosecutor said: “On February 10 2021, a category A video was sent which is notable because the age of one of the children involved was significantly younger than in the rest of the images sent – it showed several acts of penetration between two children aged around seven to nine and 11 to 13 respectively.

“There was no direct response from Mr Edwards to this video, beyond it being marked as ‘read’.

“A week later… a number of attachments were sent which included two category B videos and four category C still images comprising indecent images of children.

“On February 19 2021, Alex Williams asked: ‘is the stuff I’m sending too young for you?’

“The next response from Mr Edwards is dated February 22 2021 saying: ‘don’t send underage’.”

Hope continued: “In a later exchange on August 11, 2021, Alex Williams says he has some ‘naughty pics and vids unsure if you’d like’. Mr Edwards tells him to ‘go on’ and Alex Williams states ‘yng [sic]’.

“Mr Edwards again tells him to ‘go on’ and Alex Williams sends a Category A moving image showing a male child aged around 7 to 9…”

“Mr Edwards inquires where the video is from and Alex Williams says an image sharing group on another social media platform which they have both also used, Telegram.

“Alex Williams says the subject is ‘quite yng looking’ to which Mr Edwards responds it ‘can be deceptive’ and asks if he has ‘any more?’

“Alex Williams says he has but he is not sure if Mr Edwards would like them as they are illegal.

“Mr Edwards says: ‘Ah ok don’t’ and the exchange immediately following concerns a series of images which Alex Williams describes as ‘looks young don’t he but he’s deffo 19′.”

The relevant images in Edwards’ case range from the most serious category, known as category A, to the least serious, known as category C.

They include seven category A images, 12 category B images and 22 category C images.

Of the most serious images received by Edwards, the estimated age of most of the children was between 13 and 15, but one was aged between seven and nine.

The Sentencing Council, a public body sponsored by the Ministry of Justice, defines category A images as those involving penetrative sexual activity, sexual activity with an animal, or sadism.

Category B images are those involving non-penetrative sexual activity, while category C images are indecent images that do not fall into A or B.

According to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), “making” an indecent image has been broadly interpreted by the courts.

It can range from opening an attachment to an email containing an image, to accessing pornographic websites in which indecent photographs of children appear by way of an automatic “pop-up” mechanism.

BBC in attempt to recoup pay Huw Edwards received after his arrest

Williams was charged in relation to his Whatsapp chat with Edwards and was convicted of seven offences following an investigation by South Wales Police, receiving a 12-month suspended sentence.

The final indecent image was sent in August 2021, a category A film featuring a young boy, with convicted paedophile Williams telling the newsreader the child was “quite young looking” and that he had more images which were illegal.

Overall the charges cover a period between December 2020 and August 2021.

Edwards was arrested in November but continued to receive a BBC salary until his resignation on medical advice in April. The BBC is trying to retrieve an estimated £200,000 paid during that time.

A BBC spokesperson said after Edwards was sentenced: “We are appalled by his crimes. He has betrayed not just the BBC, but audiences who put their trust in him.”

Edwards was charged in June but the fact of his arrest and charge was not made public until late July, days before his first court appearance.

He has been convicted on charges that are completely separate to allegations published by The Sun last year, which prompted his initial suspension from the BBC, that he had paid a young person for sexual images.

The post Huw Edwards given suspended six-month sentence over indecent images charges appeared first on Press Gazette.

BBC chairman Samir Shah has admitted that disgraced former newsreader Huw Edwards “damaged” the reputation of the corporation.

Director-general Tim Davie and Shah were questioned before the House of Lords’ Communications and Digital Committee on their future strategy, as well as the broadcaster’s funding model amid a decline in licence fee payers.

Davie also gave an update on recovering an estimated £200,000 in pay from Edwards.

When asked about the situation, Shah told the committee: “There’s nothing more important than public trust in the BBC, and we are custodians of that trust and what Huw Edwards did damage the reputation and the trust for the BBC so we take that very seriously indeed.

“I should say, it was a shock to discover, when it was announced, when he was charged, that he had led this double life. On the face of it, a trusted news presenter, but hidden, secretly, he was this figure who did the most appalling things. I mean, let’s never forget the victims.”

He added that he “knew him”, having overseen current affairs at the BBC decades ago, and other staff who worked with him “feel angry and betrayed” by Edwards.

Shah added: “I asked him, as Tim, to give me an account of the decisions they took in the course of that year. We then reviewed those decisions, and we believe, as Tim has said, and we said in our statement that the decisions Tim and his team took were made in good faith.

“These were very complicated decisions, and given the evidence available to them at the time, they made reasonable decisions based on the evidence. So we supported it, and we continue to support it.”

The BBC admitted it was informed that the former TV presenter had been arrested in November but continued to employ him for around five months until he left on medical advice.

He continued to be paid a salary during this period, which the BBC has been attempting to get back following his conviction for making indecent images of children.

Davie said: “We’ve made the formal request, and I can’t go into too much detail, but discussions are under way, but I’ve got no further news, apart from the BBC’s position is clear, the money should be returned, and we made the request.”

When asked if he set a deadline, he said: “I don’t believe we set a deadline… but we do expect to make progress and get an answer.”

Davie also said the BBC will “explore” the legal process if Edwards refuses.

Edwards, 63, pleaded guilty in July to charges of having indecent images of children, with seven of the 41 being of the most serious type, after he resigned from the corporation in April.

Davie also suggested that the BBC could take steps such as dismissal before charge sooner if this happened again.

He said it “was really difficult getting the balance right, because you knew that the arrest had been made”.

Davie said: “Obviously your primary thoughts are people who are impacted, but also you’ve got people who are accused at that point, and you don’t know whether… they’re going to result in charges. So you have a lot of unknowns at that point.”

He also said: “This affair has not been easy for any of us at the BBC, and particularly for those people who’ve been impacted, but I think it’s actually right to look back and reflect and say, what are the learnings here? This is standard practice, but maybe we should be challenging that.”

The broadcaster’s executive previously released a statement on Edwards saying it will “look at lessons from this period, including the BBC’s approach to the rules surrounding payments when employees are suspended”.

During his four decades at the corporation, Edwards announced the late Queen’s death on the BBC in September 2022 and was among the teams leading coverage of historic events including the Queen’s funeral and the coronation of the King in May 2023.

Tim Davie says BBC licence fee flatlining will mean ‘erosion’ of output

During the same hearing, Davie said the recent flatlining of the BBC licence fee spells “erosion” for some of the broadcaster’s output.

He said: “The BBC will be flat in revenue terms, license fee income this year. So we’re not in freefall, but we’ve got some erosion, you’re going to get that with this level of competition.”

Davie added that the BBC had been “disinvested in” by previous Governments.

He said: “The BBC has had a billion pounds taken out of it over the last decade, plus. We haven’t kept flat, we haven’t kept flat funding. We’ve taken out a billion pounds, and we still remain at about £3.7bn” in funding.

Davie also said that without clarity on what the Media Bill means by having public service broadcasters getting appropriate prominence on digital platforms than other British channels will be in “jeopardy” along with the BBC.

“We are doing extremely well in digital,” he added. “We’ve had a fantastic summer for iPlayer. But there’s a lot of risk.”

The post BBC will ‘explore’ legal process to recoup pay from Huw Edwards if he refuses to return it appeared first on Press Gazette.

The BBC has asked Huw Edwards to return the salary he was paid during the period following his arrest in November last year.

Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy had urged the disgraced newsreader to “return his salary” and asked the BBC to look into whether it can recoup an estimated £200,000 paid to Edwards between his arrest and resignation.

A statement from the corporation’s board said that if Edwards had “been upfront when asked by the BBC about his arrest, we would never have continued to pay him public money” and added he had “undermined trust in the BBC and brought us into disrepute”.

The corporation was informed that Edwards had been arrested in November 2023 but continued to employ the broadcaster until April, when Edwards resigned on medical advice.

The BBC veteran pleaded guilty to having indecent images of children on 31 July, with the court hearing he had been involved in a Whatsapp chat with an adult man who sent him 377 sexual images, of which 41 were indecent images of children, between December 2020 and August 2021.

The BBC statement said: “There is nothing more important than the public’s trust in the BBC; the BBC board is the custodian of that trust.

“The board has met a number of times over the last week to review information provided by the executive relating to Huw Edwards. The board’s focus has been principally around two issues.

“Firstly, what was known in the lead up to Mr Edwards being charged and pleading guilty last Wednesday to making indecent images of children; and, secondly, the specifics of the BBC’s handling of the complaints and the BBC’s own investigations into Mr Edwards, prior to his resignation on April 22 2024.”

The statement added: “Today, the board has authorised the executive to seek the return of salary paid to Mr Edwards from the time he was arrested in November last year. Mr Edwards pleaded guilty to an appalling crime.”

It continued: “Whilst the nature of the charges against Mr Edwards is related to his own personal life, the board believes these events have also put a spotlight on the question of power imbalances in the workplace.

“We remain concerned about the potential for inappropriate workplace behaviour, particularly in creative and editorial environments.

“Whilst challenges related to power imbalances in the workplace are a challenge for multiple employers, the BBC must hold itself to the highest standards.”

It also announced the board has commissioned an independent review that will “make recommendations on practical steps that could strengthen a workplace culture in line with BBC values” and said the corporation will set out terms of reference and leadership of this review in early September.

In response, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said: “Public trust in the BBC is essential, and so I welcome the BBC’s decision to launch an independent review into the culture within the organisation following the Huw Edwards case and his abhorrent actions.

“The BBC is a hugely valued and important player in the public service broadcasting landscape that reaches millions every day and it is vital that the public has complete trust and faith in the organisation and in how it is run.

“BBC staff must be able to feel safe in the workplace and be confident that if non-editorial complaints are raised they will be acted upon and dealt with fairly and decisively.

“The BBC is operationally and editorially independent of the Government, however I have spoken to the BBC chair in the past week to convey these points in the interests of the public.”

Before Edwards resigned, he was the broadcaster’s highest-paid newsreader, with a pay bracket between £475,000 and £479,999 for the year 2023-24, according to the BBC’s latest annual report.

It marked a £40,000 pay rise from 2022/23, when he was paid between £435,000 and £439,999.

The BBC said after Edwards’ guilty plea that if he had been charged while he was still an employee it would have sacked him, but at the point of charge he no longer worked for the corporation.

The post BBC asks Huw Edwards to return salary paid after his arrest appeared first on Press Gazette.