Huw Edwards was today described by BBC chairman Samir Shah as a ‘villain’ who ‘behaved in bad faith’ after he admitted making indecent images of children.
Mr Shah blasted the disgraced presenter for taking ‘licence fee money to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds’ despite knowing ‘what he had done’.
Edwards, who pleaded guilty at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on July 31, received more than £200,000 between his arrest in November 2023 and resignation in April.
The BBC has asked Edwards to return what he was paid during the period after his arrest and said he had ‘undermined trust in the BBC and brought us into disrepute’.
Edwards had been the BBC’s highest-paid newsreader, with its accounts putting him in a pay bracket of between £475,000 and £479,999 for 2023/24. This was a £40,000 pay rise from 2022/23, when he was paid between £435,000 and £439,999.
Former BBC broadcaster Huw Edwards arriving at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on July 31
BBC chairman Samir Shah (pictured) said presenter Huw Edwards had ‘behaved in bad faith’
BBC chairman Samir Shah called former newsreader Huw Edwards a “villain” in this letter
In an email to BBC colleagues this afternoon, Mr Shah said the corporation ought to ‘do more’ to ‘try and get our culture right’.
It said: ‘Dear colleagues, it’s been over a week since the news broke about Huw Edwards and his crimes. It was a shock to discover that Huw Edwards was living a double life.
‘On the face of it, he was a much-admired broadcaster with whom the BBC had entrusted the responsibility of anchoring its flagship news programme and presiding over national events but he betrayed the trust of staff and our audiences in the most egregious possible way.
‘Let me be clear: the villain of this piece is Huw Edwards; the victims are those children for whose degradation Huw Edwards provided a market for.
‘Whilst I was not chair when the BBC was first alerted to Mr Edwards’ behaviour and the consequent actions taken, I – and the Board – have now had detailed accounts from BBC executives about what happened.’
He added that the Executive had to navigate a ‘complex situation’ by dealing with both the complaints made by colleagues and the police investigation into Edwards.
He said: ‘What is also clear is that Tim Davie (BBC director-general) and his team approached every key decision in good faith; Mr Edwards behaved in bad faith.
‘Throughout this time, Mr Edwards knew what he had done but he still took licence fee money to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Huw Edwards arrives at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on July 31 for his court hearing
Director-general Tim Davie said the BBC could consider legal action to get back the salary
‘The Board fully support the decision of the Executive, who have written to Mr Edwards to return the money.
‘Nevertheless, there are very important lessons to be learned. I am particularly exercised by the continuing problem of how we handle bad behaviour by those with power in the BBC.
‘We cannot be a place where there is any sense that inappropriate behaviour is seen as acceptable.
‘Whilst this is a challenge for many employers, we have to hold ourselves to the highest standards.
‘I know the BBC has done a tremendous amount to try and get our culture right, however, it is clear to me that we need to do more.’
Mr Shah said ‘people must be treated with respect and in line with our values’ and added that the independent review announced ‘is vital’.
Also today, a statement from the corporation 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 went on to say: ‘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. Had he been up front when asked by the BBC about his arrest, we would never have continued to pay him public money.
‘He has clearly undermined trust in the BBC and brought us into disrepute.’
It also announced that 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’.
It comes after Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy last week urged Edwards to return his salary and asked the BBC to look into whether it can recoup money from his pay packet if does not give it back.
Today, Ms Nandy said she welcomes the BBC’s decision to launch an independent review following the Huw Edwards case.
She added: ‘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.’
Edwards also could still retire on a BBC pension paying more than £300,000-a-year. He is thought to have been entitled to a pension paying two thirds of his final salary from the age of 60.
In an interview with BBC News on August 1, its director-general Time Davie defended Edwards’s pay rise, saying it was made up of an ‘inflationary increase’ and work the presenter did at the BBC in February 2023 before any allegations were made.
Mr Davie also said in the same interview that the corporation would ‘look at all options’ in trying to reclaim pay from Edwards after the revelations, but ruled out doing the same for his pension due to legal reasons.
The BBC previously 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.
Speaking today about what could happen next, Sarah Chilton, senior partner who specialises in partnership and employment law at CM Murray told MailOnline: ‘The BBC requesting that Huw Edwards pay back his salary, paid to him between his arrest and subsequent resignation, is really a request for him to do the right thing.
‘There is no obvious legal basis for the request, or entitlement to recover the monies.
‘Employees are paid their salary when employed, even when suspended, and then cease to be entitled to that pay when they resign or are dismissed.’
Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy had asked the BBC to look into whether it could recoup the cash
She added that an employer who later finds out that the employee did something which would have entitled them to dismiss earlier will ‘only be able to recover payments in very limited circumstances’.
Ms Chilton also pointed out that an employer without a legal basis – usually found in a contract – to recover monies paid to an employee has no legal basis to recover this, ‘whatever egregious conduct may have been committed or alleged whilst they were employed’.
She also said that because Edwards is being asked to return the money, it ‘suggests the BBC do not have a contractual basis to actually recover it’, adding: ‘It will be interesting to see what they do if he refuses.’
Sophie Whitbread, employment lawyer at Penningtons Manches Cooper, added: ‘The BBC will face significant challenges in attempting to reclaim the money Edwards earned.
Related Post
‘As I understand it, he was suspended during the period in question. In employment law, suspension does not imply guilt or serve as a disciplinary measure, meaning the individual remains entitled to full pay throughout the suspension.
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 them
‘Therefore, Edwards lawfully earned this money, and it is his to keep. The BBC had the option to dismiss him, which would have ended the suspension and reduced the salary he received, but it presumably had reasons for not taking that course of action.’
On July 31, Edwards admitted at Westminster Magistrates’ Court to having indecent images of children, with seven of the 41 images being of the most serious type.
The court heard he had been involved in an online chat with an adult man on WhatsApp between December 2020 and August 2021, who sent him 377 sexual images, of which 41 were indecent images of children.
Mr Davie later defended his decision to employ Edwards until April, five months after he was told of Edwards’ arrest over the most serious category of indecent images of children.
Edwards resigned from the BBC in April ‘on the basis of medical advice from his doctors’ after unrelated allegations that he paid a young person for sexually-explicit photos. Police found no evidence of criminal behaviour in that matter.
Edwards will next appear in court on September 16.
