May I please ask. The BBC DG stated the police asked the arrest to be kept confidential? I do not quite understand this. How can this be? The BBC were Huw’s employers. They are not subject to police investigation and there was no reporting on this matter? The open justice system was ignored and the BBC is using the police as an excuse for not releasing any details. The police haven’t said anything, there were no reporting restrictions. What is this about?
I'm afraid I don't know the answer to any of these questions. It's possible the BBC felt it was acting in accordance with the duty it owed its employee — not least because Edwards was said to be in poor health.
Why describe the September hearing as a “PRE- sentence” hearing? Are there issues to be adjudicated upon perhaps after evidence and legal argument since there has been a basis of plea unacceptable to the prosecution and/or the Court? Otherwise is the case to be resolved following upon the provision of a pre-sentence report, as would be the normal process? Am I missing something?
Might it be that the Chief Magistrate has reserved the right to commit Edwards to the Crown Court for sentencing if he feels his powers are insufficient? Perhaps he needs additional information before making that decision.
Yes, that had occurred to me. But it seemed unlikely from what we knew about the case and I wasn't completely sure about the legal position. So I decided not to mention it.
Good question. A well-informed reader tells me that the CPS may have got this wrong. Incidentally, the term used in the CPS announcement was "pre-sentencing", not "pre-sentence" as I originally wrote.
The claim that BBC journalists weren’t informed is not technically accurate, as Deborah Turness - BBC News CEO was informed.
The BBC appears to have committed a terrible series of own goals.
I stand by the last sentence of my piece as an accurate summary. All BBC journalists would have regarded Turness as a manager.
I follow Lord Billingshurst’s point but I agree with Joshua that on the basis of what has been reported that SEEMS unlikely.
Hello Joshua,
May I please ask. The BBC DG stated the police asked the arrest to be kept confidential? I do not quite understand this. How can this be? The BBC were Huw’s employers. They are not subject to police investigation and there was no reporting on this matter? The open justice system was ignored and the BBC is using the police as an excuse for not releasing any details. The police haven’t said anything, there were no reporting restrictions. What is this about?
I'm afraid I don't know the answer to any of these questions. It's possible the BBC felt it was acting in accordance with the duty it owed its employee — not least because Edwards was said to be in poor health.
Quite right, Joshua, if I may say so.
He would have been dismissive if the BBC knew he had been charged!
Really?
Not convicted, just charged?
Does anyone else see a problem there?
You bet. A compromise might have been to suspend him without pay.
Thank you, Joshua. In terms of clarification, “-sentencing” rather than “-sentence” scarcely helps, as I see it.
Indeed. But I thought I ought to correct it.
Why describe the September hearing as a “PRE- sentence” hearing? Are there issues to be adjudicated upon perhaps after evidence and legal argument since there has been a basis of plea unacceptable to the prosecution and/or the Court? Otherwise is the case to be resolved following upon the provision of a pre-sentence report, as would be the normal process? Am I missing something?
Might it be that the Chief Magistrate has reserved the right to commit Edwards to the Crown Court for sentencing if he feels his powers are insufficient? Perhaps he needs additional information before making that decision.
Yes, that had occurred to me. But it seemed unlikely from what we knew about the case and I wasn't completely sure about the legal position. So I decided not to mention it.
Good question. A well-informed reader tells me that the CPS may have got this wrong. Incidentally, the term used in the CPS announcement was "pre-sentencing", not "pre-sentence" as I originally wrote.