A dumb question but I'll ask anyway (TW: Huw Edwards, child SA)

[PoodlesRUs]

How come Huw Edwards wasn't charged for each image? He had 41 (iirc) child SA images yet didn't face 41 charges. There is a reason for that presumably but can any legal minds explain why? Does it not make any material difference?

If possible, I'd prefer to focus on the above question rather than his sentencing. I say this because I know emotions run high.

Not a dumb question I would like to understand this too

Following, I hope the answer isn't because of money.

Because he has friends in high places

It's disgusting tbh. He should've been charged for each one

I thought the charge was by category? The BBC breaks it down but he had made images in all 3 categories - Category A, B and C. CatbA is the most serious. So all 41 images were included within those three category charges.

The fact that you are defending someone who wrote "Mass deportation now, set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care... If that makes me racist, so be it.” says a lot more about you than it does about Keir Starmer.

I'm sure I've seen similar in other paedophilia cases that make the news so I doubt it's down to money.

Ah okay, that is one way to charge him. I just wonder is it not worth charging each individual instance or does that just waate time and resources whilst having no impact on sentencing? Or rather can the volume and pattern be established without the need to create 41 charges?

I'm quoting you for the first part of my message. I'm not expecting you to necessarily know the answer to the rest! 🙂I'm puzzling it out aloud.

Ok...so I'm not sure where you are getting that from.

My point : some thick uneducated middle age woman sprouts idiocies (sed her to jail for years)

A wealthy, educated male is shown to be a paedophile : suspended sentence

Two tier, no? One is a threat to society. One doesn't pose a credible threat.

I don't know but my guess is it's the same outcome for less red tape, I know each individual charge against someone is a vast volume of paperwork.

I think you're probably right. Maybe then the prosecution don't need to provide evidence for 41 charges.

I wonder how they decide what to include in the sort-of collective charge then. For example, if someone pled not guilty and somehow showed that two images were not illegal or created (or whatever the offence is, this is a mere example) then would the whole cat C charge fail. Or would the prosecution instead show other images were illegal. Hmm questions questions

I don't suppose it's possible to have a charge per image because you hear of cases where perpetrators have hundreds or thousands of them.

The offence involves indecent imageS not image Section 1 PCA 1978, you then get a breakdown of category and volume, usually there is a charge port category regardless of the number of individual images, it's worth nothing that the definition of images also includes videos. There are subcategories within the offence of making indecent images.
More info here
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/indecent-and-prohibited-images-children
This is the same for anyone facing this charge/conviction, it's nothing to do with his wealth. It's also common for these types of offences to not result in immediate custody, and it's within sentencing guidelines.

Can we all agree this poster is nuts?

I'm so glad that 'thicko' was chucked in jail, maybe they can read a few books to pass the time?

@MyOtherCarisAVauxhallZafira very helpful, thank you!

I think it's a response somewhat driven by emotion, isn't it? A sort of "get them for everything you can" so 41 charges rather than 1 or 2 or 3. Perhaps I am not as objective as I like to believe!

Silly comment

Keir Starmer has nothing to do with Huw Edwards' sentence!

Well suggesting Starmer is in any way a "lefty" is kinda the big giveaway you're talking about a loon.

Can we all agree this poster is nuts?

Yes

Why are posters on this thread Keir bashing when it's supposed to be about Edwards who we all agree is 100% more vile

Sentences run concurrently in the UK, so theoretically, whether someone is charged each and every time there is an offence that carries a (for arguments sake) 2 year maximum sentence, or whether they are charged once total, they are still facing a maximum of 2 years inside.

Obviously there is consideration given to the scope of the offending and that can affect the sentence, but it's totally different in places where sentences are not served concurrently, like the US, where it's not uncommon to hear of people facing 300+ years behind bars 😃

Also yes.

Simple logic dictates that if you try to prosecute someone on 40, 50, or more charges, it dramatically increases the chances of something going awry, at least one of the charges not standing up, and casting doubt about the veracity of the remainder.

Some of Levi Belfield's victims were simply told that they will never see him in court to answer for the crimes he committed against them. Nobody is in any doubt that what they claim he did is fact, but as he's already in jail for the rest of his life, it is deemed that it isn't in the public interest to go to the expense and time of prosecuting him again and again when it won't increase his sentence any.

i do not agree