The BBC is facing questions over why it continued to pay news presenter Huw Edwards his salary for five months after his arrest for possessing indecent images of children in November 2023. Here, employment law experts tell Adam McCulloch how they think the BBC has handled the case.
Yesterday (31 July), Edwards pleaded guilty to three counts of “making indecent images of children”. The charges stemmed from an investigation centred around WhatsApp messages in south Wales. These were not directly related to the allegations that he paid for explicit images of a younger person that emerged in summer 2023.
Edwards was suspended on full pay (about £475,000) by the BBC in November 2023 and resigned from the corporation in April this year citing medical advice. It is normal BBC policy to pay salaries in full to staff who are under suspension.
The BBC said in its statement that if Edwards had been charged in November – indicating that prosecutors had sufficient evidence to expect a conviction – it would have dismissed the newsreader, but he faced no charges until after he had resigned.
Senior BBC management have told staff they are “appalled” at Edwards’ guilty plea in an emailed statement and director general said on 1 August that the Corporation was exploring the possibility of legal action to claw back some of its payments to Edwards.
When it came to Edwards’ pension, Davie told BBC News that the sums were “very difficult to claw back, nigh on impossible”. He added: “When it comes to pay, again, [it is] legally challenging, but we’ll look at all options.”
Misconduct investigations
What should an investigation into employee misconduct involve?
Since his arrest, Edwards has received more than £200,000 in salary.
The newsreader received between £435,000 and £439,999 in the year 2022-23, which rose to £475,000-£479,999 between April 2023 and April 2024, the BBC’s latest annual report shows.
At the time of his arrest, Edwards had already been off air since July 2023, after the Sun newspaper had published claims he had paid a young person for sexually explicit images. Police found no evidence of criminal behaviour in relation to this and the current court case is unrelated.
The Crown Prosecution Service says “making indecent images of children” has a wide legal definition that may include opening images sent on email.
Without making any judgement as to his guilt, the BBC could validly have considered dismissing Edwards on the basis of what employment legislation labels ‘some other substantial reason’” – Simon Bellm, DMH Stallard
Culture secretary Lisa Nandy met Tim Davie, the BBC director general, on 1 August following Edwards’ admission of guilt to discuss. A Department for Culture, Media and Sport spokesperson, in response to the meeting, said: “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.”
Employment law experts emphasise that employers have a duty of care in these circumstances. If a worker is sacked after being arrested, the employer could face legal problems if the employee is then found not guilty.
The BBC has also said it was made aware of “significant risk to his health”. This may have prevented it from revealing news of the arrest in November.
Legal opinion
Simon Bellm, partner in the employment team at law firm DMH Stallard, underlined the difficulties faced by the BBC in Edwards’ case. He said: “While it is hard to see how BBC could have fairly dismissed Huw Edwards in November 2023 solely on the basis of his arrest, by that time there were various factors which suggested it was unlikely Edwards would be returning to work for BBC.
“When BBC became aware of Edwards’ arrest, it would have been open to the BBC to question the viability of Edwards’ continued employment. We don’t know when BBC executives became aware of Edwards being charged. That would have been a factor that would lend further weight to concerns regarding ongoing employment.”
Bellm added that there was possible justification for dismissing Edwards: “Without making any judgement as to his guilt, the BBC could validly have considered dismissing Edwards on the basis of what employment legislation labels ‘some other substantial reason’ justifying the termination of the employment. In this case that substantial reason would have been the publicity surrounding Edwards’ objectionable behaviour, the fact that was only going to get worse and the need for public trust and confidence in the BBC, not least in those responsible for broadcasting the news.
“At the moment there is a clamour for answers from the BBC. We will have to wait to see if and how it explains what appears to have been a very passive approach to Edwards’ case.
The employers’ rights and obligations in this kind of case depend on the specific terms of the contract – to which we don’t have access” Ronnie Fox, Fox & Partners
Charlotte Rees-John, an employment law partner at legal firm Irwin Mitchell, told the Guardian, however, that “It would have been possible to dismiss Huw Edwards after he was arrested”. This was not without risk given he had not yet been charged, so a safer approach was taken, she added. Edwards’ mental health will also have been a factor given that the Corporation will have presumed he was innocent at that point.
Ronnie Fox, partner at employment solicitor Fox & Partners, felt the BBC had handled the case satisfactorily, and had had little choice but to continue paying Edwards. He said: “This is a contractual issue. Certain contracts – with personality sponsorship and influencer contracts being prime examples – may have clauses stipulating that negative publicity is grounds for termination. This is not common, however.
“The presumption of innocence until proven guilty is a basic principle of English law. Employers usually have a contractual right to suspend an employee if the employee’s conduct is called into serious question, for example, if criminal charges are brought – but that does not permit the employer to terminate the contract or end payment.
Fox said it was unlikely there were legal grounds for the BBC to dismiss Edwards: “What has emerged is that the BBC knew about the more serious charges for about six months. Since these charges were accusations at the time and, so far as we know, Huw Edwards did not admit until very recently that the accusations were well-founded nor share his intention of pleading guilty to very serious charges associated with child pornography, it seems unlikely that the BBC had legal grounds to terminate his employment and end payment before he chose to resign.”
“The employers’ rights and obligations in this kind of case depend on the specific terms of the contract – to which we don’t have access.
“The net result is that it is unfair to criticise the BBC for continuing to pay Huw Edwards while he was suspended.”
Slow investigation
At the time of Edwards’ resignation in April Eliza Nash, employment partner of Constantine Law, was critical of the amount of time the BBC was taking with its workplace investigation. She told Personnel Today: “Where an individual is suffering from mental or physical health issues, it should still be possible to conduct an investigation – accommodations can and should be made to involve all parties in the process. In the Edwards case, the BBC has already had to apologise to a complainant about the delay in escalating their complaint and acknowledged ‘specific process shortcomings’.”
The BBC announced in February this year, in response to a review by Deloitte, that it would enhance its system for non-editorial complaints processes.
Meanwhile, the Met has named the subject of the original investigation as Alex Williams, 25, from Merthyr Tydfil in Wales, who sent Edwards 41 indecent images of children between December 2020 and August 2021.
As a result of the original investigation, Williams was convicted of seven offences related to indecent images and prohibited images of children and was given a suspended 12-month jail sentence at Merthyr Tydfil Crown Court on 15 March.
Latest HR job opportunities on Personnel Today
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
Browse more human resources jobs
