The BBC have come under questioning regarding its handling of the Huw Edwards case in the wake of him pleading guilty to child sex offences on 31 July 2024. There is a particular focus on the period of Edwards’ suspension from July 2023, when he continued to receive his full pay of £475,000 per annum, and also received a pay rise of £40,000 during this time. We now know that the BBC were made aware of his arrest during November 2023. The underlying question here is whether his employer should have dismissed him at this point.

Putting aside the awful nature of his crimes, there is no getting away from the fact that, from an employment law perspective, the BBC had obligations towards Edwards until his resignation in April 2024.

Obligations during suspension

Once an employer is made aware of allegations of criminal activity and criminal charges relating to its employee, they are obligated to investigate to try and obtain as much information as possible.

Right to suspend

In most cases of gross misconduct (and more serious cases of simple misconduct), employers should consider suspending an employee pending the results of their investigation. Whilst suspension is by no means the default position, the ACAS code of Practice suggests suspension is acceptable if the employer reasonably believes it would be protecting any of the following:

• the investigation: for example, if you’re concerned about someone damaging evidence or influencing witnesses;
• the business: for example if there’s a genuine risk to your customers, property or business interests;
• other staff; or
• the person under investigation.

During the suspension, the employer will need to carefully consider decisions surrounding pay. Unless there is a clear contractual right to do so, the employer is not entitled to suspend a salaried employee without pay or contractual benefits.

In this case, if the BBC withheld or reduced Edward’s pay during his suspension, there would have been a risk of legal action by Edwards, although it is questionable whether Edwards would have wished to attract further media attention by instigating legal proceedings. In fact, there would still have been a risk of legal action, such as a claim of constructive unfair dismissal even if the contract allowed reduced or no pay during suspension.  

Would it have been fair to dismiss Edwards from November 2023, had he not resigned in April 2024?

Following the allegations, careful consideration ought to have been given to the pending disciplinary process and what action to take.

Prior to any dismissal, employers should consider the following:  

• nature of the conduct: in cases of misconduct, consider whether actions or allegations relating to actions outside of work are sufficiently serious to warrant disciplinary action at work. Sometimes even cases that appear to be obvious misconduct affecting employment can lead to successful claims of unfair dismissal, such as in Walters v Asda Stores.
• the evidence: when considering dismissal, the employer should endeavour to have as much information as possible prior to making any decision.
• employee’s health: prior to any dismissal, the employer ought to consider whether there are any allegations or information to suggest ill-health on the part of the employee. If so, the employer ought to investigate the employee’s health. If the employee refuses to co-operate, it may be fair for the employer to dismiss.
• the procedure: an employer must still follow a fair and reasonable procedure if an employee is accused of misconduct, including gross misconduct. What is fair and reasonable will vary from case to case, but there are certain minimum requirements, which ought to be followed in all cases. For example, employees have the right to be accompanied by a colleague or Trade Union representative at a disciplinary hearing.

In the case of Edwards, the complexity arises from the fact his criminal activity and convictions were unrelated to his work. Further, at the time of his arrest, the BBC claimed it did not have all the details surrounding the offences. It was also known that Edwards was hospitalized due to experiencing severe mental health issues which had worsened since the allegations were made. 

While criminal allegations or convictions alone may not justify disciplinary action or dismissal, there may still be grounds to dismiss. An employer may be able to establish a potentially fair reason for dismissal, if they can show there is misconduct sufficiently serious to justify dismissal for some other substantial reason. 

Employers may consider that an employee’s conduct (in this case criminal conduct outside of the workplace) is sufficiently serious to justify a dismissal on the basis that continuing to employ them would have a reputational impact. They would have to consider the nature of the offence and whether this will attract negative publicity. If so, they would need to consider reputational risk, as well as their health and safety obligations towards other staff, or service users. 

In the case of Edwards, given the nature of his offending, the reputational damage would have had a huge negative effect on the reputation of the BBC – a body that must be seen to uphold the highest standards. Had Edwards not resigned and the BBC continued to employ him, this would have exposed the BBC to disrepute, scandal and contempt. Edward’s link to the BBC could have caused sufficient damage to its reputation to affect the amount of licence revenue the BBC could generate for years to come.   

The BBC probably had all these considerations in mind when it decided not to dismiss Edwards. Edwards had not been found, or pled, guilty and the complex investigation was still ongoing. He was also hospitalised due to a mental health crisis. Failing to follow a fair and reasonable procedure, and disregarding his ill-health, could have exposed the BBC to liability for a claim of unfair dismissal. However, had Edwards not resigned in April 2024, the BBC would have had fair reason to dismiss him following his guilty plea.

When should an employer take action against the employee?

There are no hard and fast rules to apply when determining whether to go ahead with disciplinary proceedings when there is a criminal trial pending. The most important thing is for the employer to conduct its own investigations into the issues and to properly consider the options available in line with their requirements in the Employment Rights Act 1996. Employers have discretion whether to postpone disciplinary action where the employee’s misconduct is also the subject of a criminal investigation and prosecution. Even in emotive cases such as this, an employer ought to be careful not to act precipitously. 

BBC’s obligations to other staff

Whistleblowers who gave evidence to the BBC internal inquiry into Huw Edwards have criticised the way it was handled. One staff member says they were sent flirtatious private messages by the presenter in 2023. They complained that they had not been kept informed about the progress of the inquiry. Another staff member claimed that Edwards sent suggestive messages alongside a picture of his hotel suite.

Such allegations may constitute whistleblowing, which affords the employee various protections from dismissal and detriment, on the ground that they have made a protected disclosure. Providing effective protection for whistleblowers is important for several reasons, including:

• encouraging a speak-up culture;
• internal risk control;
• limiting reputational damage;
• protecting staff morale; and
• avoiding unnecessary litigation.

If an employee is dismissed or is subjected to detriment on the ground that they have made a protected disclosure, this can expose the employer to potential tribunal claims for automatically unfair dismissal or whistleblowing detriment. Importantly, financial compensation in respect of these claims is uncapped, so employer liability can be significant.

When someone blows the whistle, the employer should explain its procedures for making a disclosure and whether the whistleblower can expect to receive any feedback. Often a whistleblower expects to influence the action the employer might take, or expects to make a judgement on whether an issue has been resolved, but this will rarely be appropriate.  

It is in the employer’s best interests to deal with a whistleblowing disclosure promptly. This allows the employer to fully investigate, make any further necessary enquiries and determine any appropriate action.  

There are several things an employer should do when a whistleblowing disclosure is made. It is important to make sure that as an employer, you:

• handle any whistleblowing complaint fairly and consistently;
• follow any process your organisation has for whistleblowing; and
• keep the identity of the whistleblower confidential. 

The Government’s Whistleblowing Code of Practice encourages clear and prompt communications between the whistleblower and the employer. They should provide feedback to whistleblowers, within the confines of their internal policies and procedures. This is vital so that whistleblowers understand how their disclosure has been handled and dealt with. Failing to do so may result in the whistleblower approaching other individuals or organisations to blow the whistle externally. Therefore, it is strongly advisable for an employer to have a policy which explains the benefits of making a disclosure, the process and how the disclosure will be dealt with.

Takeaways from this case

It is reasonable to say that this case is far more complex than it may have initially appeared. If you need further guidance in relation to employee misconduct, suspension or dismissal, or you need a whistleblowing or disciplinary policy, please speak to our specialist employment team.