The BBC’s internal inquiry into the allegations faced by news presenter Huw Edwards that he paid for sexually explicit photographs of a younger person, faces complex issues as perceptions of the story race ahead of the known facts.
What was assumed by many to be a case of criminal conduct given the initial reporting of the case by The Sun has now been downgraded to a case of potential misconduct by an employee, as police say they have seen no evidence of criminality.
The Sun had originally reported that the young person involved was 17 when they began selling explicit photographs of themselves – an allegation dismissed on Monday as “rubbish” by the lawyer representing the person, who is now 20.
Former controller of Radio 4 Mark Damazer this morning urged the BBC to exercise a proper duty of care, as Edwards was reported by his wife, TV producer Vicky Flind, to be in hospital with serious mental health issues as a result of the media coverage.
Misconduct investigations
What should an investigation into employee misconduct involve?
Damazer said “it is extremely important that Tim [Davie] and the BBC doesn’t feel that it has to be rushed by other people’s agendas to come to measured, appropriate and evidenced conclusions.
“I think jumping to a conclusion about what those answers should say is not quite reasonable.”
Meanwhile, a BBC employee has told special correspondent Lucy Manning they had received “inappropriate ” and “suggestive” messages from Edwards this year.
The internal BBC inquiry could lead to dismissal, a reprimand, or reputational rehabilitation according to BBC editor Katie Razzall.
Samantha Dickinson, partner at law firm Mayo Wynne Baxter, told Personnel Today that now Huw Edwards’ name had been released it was “next to impossible for this genie to be put back in the bottle”.
She added: “Even if there is no case to answer in terms of misconduct, the BBC may decide that the reputational damage caused to them is enough to justify the dismissal of this presenter.
“This story illustrates exactly why it is so important for employers to keep allegations of misconduct confidential.”
Speaking on Tuesday, before Edwards’ identity was revealed, Helen Watson, partner and head of employment law at Aaron & Partners, said it was important to avoid any outcome being preconceived so the employee is not put to a detriment during the period of the investigation.
She said: “The detriment to the employee of course comes because if innocent, there is immediately a presumption of guilt on the part of the wider workforce or public where someone is removed from office (even for this short period of time during suspension). There is bound to be a lot of talk behind the scenes and the employer needs to ensure this doesn’t tarnish a fair internal investigation process, with opinions and preconceptions.”
Watson commented that employers would be concerned about avoiding any potential future claims from the employee in the event that their employment is brought to an end, adding: “During a period of suspension, it’s usual for an employee to have limited access (if any) to any IT, work colleagues and workplace, and can therefore be a period of upset, turmoil and loneliness. For this reason, any investigation must be carried out quickly, with time being of the essence.
With particular pertinence to Edwards’ case she added: “The longer it is drawn out the more chance there is of the employee developing mental health issues and reaching a point where it is untenable for their return to the workplace, even if no evidence is found to substantiate allegations against them. This would potentially give rise to the employee establishing a valid claim against the employer.”
However, the story has raced ahead of the established facts, perhaps terminally damaging Edwards’ reputation before the truth can emerge, putting both employee and employer in an impossible position.
Dickinson warned that “an employee without proper cause may amount to a breach of trust and confidence that could entitle them to resign and bring a constructive unfair dismissal claim.”
Edwards has reportedly used his Twitter account to “like” a tweet suggesting The Sun was facing the “mother of all libel actions”. Flind added: “Once well enough, he intends to respond to the stories published.”
Latest HR job opportunities on Personnel Today
Browse more human resources jobs
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
