Paul McGowan is Principal Solicitor at specialist employment law firm, Collingwood Legal. Paul considers the recent news story concerning Huw Edwards and the BBC.
On 31 July 2024, the former BBC presenter Huw Edwards pleaded guilty to three counts of making indecent images of children. Mr. Edwards had already resigned in April 2024.
On 1 August 2024, the BBC’s Director General, Tim Davie confirmed that the BBC knew about the seriousness of the allegations against Mr. Edwards in November 2023 but defended the decision not to sack Mr. Edwards while still employed. In an interview, he explained that the organisation had taken “difficult decisions in a fair and judicious manner” factoring in an ongoing police investigation into Mr. Edwards’ conduct, that Mr. Edwards had not been charged at this point and its duty of care to Mr. Edwards.
At the time of preparing this article the full details of this case are not yet known but the BBC is under increasing scrutiny about its decision making particularly as Mr. Edwards continued to receive his publicly funded salary of circa £440,000 per annum throughout this period. So, what are the lessons for employers from this case?
Police involvement
It is not generally fair for an employer to dismiss an employee who has been arrested or charged with a criminal offence without following their own fair procedure of investigating the alleged misconduct and giving the employee a formal hearing. There is, however, no general rule that an employer cannot carry out its own investigation while a police investigation is ongoing.
It may still be possible for an employer to be proactive and reach its own conclusions and terminate and employee’s employment by way of a fair process before a police investigation has concluded. There may, of course, be practical considerations that an employer has to balance if it takes this step, but, generally, the police investigation should not stop an employer from progressing its own investigation and disciplinary process.
Mr. Davie appears to suggest that the police informed the BBC that “they need to do their work in total confidence” as a reason for its decision not to dismiss Mr. Edwards. As matters stand, it is not clear the practical extent of this limitation on the BBC’s ability to proactively investigate matters itself.
Suspension and pay
There has also been anger reported about Mr. Edwards continuing to receive his salary while he was suspended. However, in circumstances where an employer wishes to suspend an employee then it should always do so in accordance with its contractual obligations. An unpaid suspension would normally be in breach of contract and indicate a presumption of guilt rather than an employer approaching an investigation or disciplinary process with an open mind.
The BBC has been asked questions about clawing back Mr. Edwards pension payments or the increase to his salary in 2023 before the allegations came to light. Mr. Davie described this possibility as “very difficult” and “nigh on impossible” which will likely be a result of the terms of such payments made to Mr. Edwards. Unless Mr. Edwards has been fundamentally dishonest with the BBC during this time or decides to return the money himself it seems highly unlikely the money will be returned.
Lessons for employers…
Clearly this is an unpalatable situation and has also been a PR disaster for the BBC.
In this case the BBC appears to have got caught between various difficult decisions from November 2023 and ultimately not made any constructive decision before Mr. Edwards resignation in April 2024.
Deciding to terminate any individual’s employment is always a difficult decision. However, in my view, decisive and prompt action from the BBC could well have saved money and avoided much of the recent negative publicity.
Collingwood Legal is a specialist employment law firm and we provide bespoke training and advice to organisations on all areas of employment law.
www.collingwoodlegal.com
0191 282 2880