Huw Edwards asked to hand back £200k in salary he earned after child abuse image arrest

9 August 2024, 12:04 | Updated: 9 August 2024, 13:59

Huw Edwards has been asked to hand back more than £200,000 in salary he earned after his arrest for making indecent images of children.

The disgraced BBC newsreader was arrested in November, which senior executives at the corporation were aware of. He was paid £200,000 in the five months between his arrest and his departure in April.

Married father of five Edwards, 62, admitted three counts of making indecent child images last week, after being charged in June.

He was paid £475,000 - a pay rise - in his final year at the BBC, which was a £40,000 pay rise.

The BBC announced on Friday that the corporation had asked Edwards to return the £200,000, and said that they had launched an independent review into the workplace culture.

Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy welcomed the move.

An employment lawyer said that there was "no obvious legal basis for the request."

Read more: BBC admits it knew Huw Edwards had been arrested over most serious indecent images of children - but still paid him

Read more: TV bosses to face government grilling over Huw Edwards scandal as it emerges presenter was still paid after arrest

BBC chairman Samir Shah said that Edwards had "behaved in bad faith" by taking the remainder of his salary despite knowing he was going to plead guilty to the offences.

The BBC board said "we would never have continued to pay him public money" if he had been upfront about his intentions.

"He has clearly undermined the trust in the BBC and brought us into disrepute," they added.

The corporation has not said whether it will take legal means to claw back Edwards' salary if he does not return it voluntarily. But they may struggle to get the money back.

Sarah Chilton, senior partner at law firm CM Murray who specialises in partnership and employment law, told LBC: "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. 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.

"An employer, without a legal basis (usually found in the contract) to recover monies paid to an employee, has no legal basis to recover monies, whatever egregious conduct may have been committed or alleged whilst they were employed.

"We do not know how Edwards’ pay was structured, or what contractual terms apply but in view of the fact it appears he is being asked to return the money, it suggests the BBC do not have a contractual basis to actually recover it. It will be interesting to see what they do if he refuses.

"The anger around the level of pay is understandable, but the BBC made a decision to pay Huw Edwards a lot of money, and the consequences of that was that it was costly to have him suspended on full pay, but, that is what the law requires employers to do when an employee is suspended pending investigation or disciplinary proceedings."

The BBC previously said that they made a distinction between Edwards' arrest and charge, which came in June - two months after he left.

They said that if Edwards had been charged while he was still an employee it would have sacked him, but at the point of the charge he no longer worked for them.

Mr Shah's note to staff said: "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."

The note continued: "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.

"The executive had to navigate a very difficult and complex situation on two fronts: the complaints made by colleagues and others and, separately, the police investigation into Mr Edwards' criminal behaviour. In the light of what was known at the time, the decisions taken by the director-general and his team following Mr Edwards' arrest were well considered and reasonable.

"Of course hindsight can always suggest alternative actions, but unfortunately, hindsight was not available at the time. It was a balancing of considerations and an evaluation of the known facts that determined the course of action."

Ms Nandy held a meeting with BBC boss Tim Davie last week, and said that Edwards should return the £200,000.

Reacting to the BBC's announcement on Friday, Ms Nandy said: "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 admitted three charges of making indecent photographs, after he was sent 41 illegal images by convicted paedophile Alex Williams, including one of a boy as young as seven.

At the time that Edwards' latest salary was made public earlier this year, Davie defended it, saying: "We are always trying to be very judicious with the spending of public money and no-one wants to waste a pound.

"But what you're trying to do, and from the onset of that."

The BBC is funded publicly via the licence fee, which stands at £169.50 per year.

What are the charges against Huw Edwards and could he face jail time

The corporation said in a statement after Edwards' guilty plea: "In November 2023, whilst Mr Edwards was suspended, the BBC as his employer at the time was made aware in confidence that he had been arrested on suspicion of serious offences and released on bail whilst the police continued their investigation.

"At the time, no charges had been brought against Mr Edwards and the BBC had also been made aware of significant risk to his health."

The corporation added: "The BBC is shocked to hear the details which have emerged in court today. There can be no place for such abhorrent behaviour and our thoughts are with all those affected.

Ex-BBC presenter Huw Edwards admits having indecent images of children

"Today we have learnt of the conclusion of the police process in the details as presented to the court.

"If at any point during the period Mr Edwards was employed by the BBC he had been charged, the BBC had determined it would act immediately to dismiss him. In the end, at the point of charge he was no longer an employee of the BBC.

"During this period, in the usual way, the BBC has kept its corporate management of these issues separate from its independent editorial functions."