Two years ago, the conviction of BBC news anchor Huw Edwards for creating indecent images of children, some as young as 7, left the U.K. in shock.
Edwards, a prominent journalist at the BBC for nearly 40 years, was a trusted figure who had announced Queen Elizabeth II’s death in September 2022.
Prior to his 2024 arrest and conviction, a peculiar story emerged and quickly disappeared a year earlier. In July 2023, The Sun reported that a senior BBC presenter was paying a teenager for explicit images. Speculation ran rampant on social media until Edwards’ wife issued a statement confirming his involvement and his admission into a mental health facility. The public soon criticized The Sun for revealing Edwards’ identity.
A new drama by Channel 5, owned by Paramount, titled “Power: The Downfall of Huw Edwards,” reveals connections between the teenage story and Edwards’ conviction, linked through a convicted pedophile known to Edwards. This individual sent Edwards abusive images of children for money, which Edwards denied purchasing, and introduced Edwards to a 17-year-old named “Ryan,” whose real identity remains undisclosed.
The 90-minute film, produced by Wonderhood Studios, is written by Mark Burt (“The Trial”) and directed by Michael Samuels (“The Windermere Children”), featuring Martin Clunes as Edwards.
Before the show’s March 24 premiere on Channel 5, also available on Paramount+, Variety spoke with network commissioners Guy Davies and Paul Testar about bringing Huw Edwards’ downfall to television.
Where did the idea for the film come from?
Guy Davies: Wonderhood approached us with the idea for a film on Huw Edwards. This led to discussions on creating a dramatic portrayal while considering the confidentiality of key sources.
Did you approach it almost like a piece of factual content?
Davies: Indeed, the focus was on the vulnerable, traumatized Ryan character. Wonderhood excelled in maintaining that relationship and responsibility, akin to creating factual content.
Paul Testar: Mark Burt shared this focus on Ryan’s perspective and wellbeing, emphasizing the emotional depth of this grooming story, which he treated with utmost seriousness.
The debacle was hugely embarrassing for the BBC, particularly the fact they continued to pay Edwards after his arrest while he was awaiting trial. Was there any consideration internally about doing this story given that the U.K.’s broadcasting scene isn’t very big?
Davies: Honestly, no. The narrative was about power dynamics and grooming, not a BBC-centric story. The BBC inquiry was confidential, and our focus was on the abuse of power by a prominent figure.
Testar: Early on, we decided the story would resonate more broadly without centering on the BBC, focusing instead on the grooming process and its impact on a vulnerable individual and his family.
Because the story is told in that way, there might be some criticism that you’ve gone too soft on the BBC, particularly given what they knew about Edwards’ arrest months before the public became aware. What would your response be to that?
Testar: Focusing on BBC’s internal knowledge during the arrest scene would have disrupted the narrative. It was more about the emotional arc of the story.
Davies: We aimed to highlight the unheeded complaints from the family, especially in Wales, and their frustration with the BBC’s bureaucratic hurdles, leading them to the press.
Testar: It’s the challenge of an ordinary person dealing with a complex system.
Let’s talk about some of the legalities of making the show. First the disclaimer credit, which reads: “This drama is based on extensive interviews with the victim, his family and the journalists who revealed his story. Some scenes, characters and text messages have been dramatized.” In a post “Baby Reindeer” era, do you have to be more careful of exactly how you’re phrasing that?
Testar: Yes, precise phrasing is crucial, and disclaimers vary based on the story and sources. This caution existed even before the “Baby Reindeer” incident.
At the end there is also a credit noting Edwards was offered the opportunity to comment and declined. Were you expecting him to make a statement?
Davies: No, we never intended for this to be a collaboration with him.
Did you see the statement he put out on Monday in which he condemned the dramatization? Is there anything you’d want to add to the statement Channel 5 already put out in response?
Davies: No, the existing statement reflects our position. The film was thoroughly researched and adhered to Ofcom and Broadcasting Code regulations, which we ensured in advance.
He has said he is also planning to “produce his own account.” Is that something that Channel Five might be interested in?
Davies: No.
Did making the film give you any insight into why he did what he did?
Davies: I can’t say, that’s a question for him. The psychiatric reports provide some insight, but I won’t speculate on his psychology.
Did you pay Ryan for his life rights?
Davies: We prefer not to discuss that. Any arrangements with Ryan or Wonderhood are private. Huw has inquired about this.
The film opens with Edwards reporting Queen Elizabeth’s death and ends with him announcing his own conviction, which was obviously a dramatic license. Why did you choose to start and end there?
Testar: That juxtaposition struck Mark early on. Announcing the Queen’s death was a significant role, symbolizing trust, which became a metaphor for power and its abuse.
Davies: Edwards’ public trust symbolized power and abuse, making it a compelling narrative to explore how trust and power intertwine.
Did you always know the film was going to end with him reading out his own conviction as a news reader?
Testar: It was decided early, though not in the first draft. It provided a powerful conclusion, highlighting the gravity of Edwards’ offenses.
Davies: It was about holding him accountable to the public, in the very medium he once thrived in.
I remember from covering the conviction and the court case that it was such a strange thing that this guy who for so long had been the face of the news had become the news.
Testar: This scandal changed public perceptions of institutional figures, emphasizing scrutiny of such roles due to Edwards’ influence.
This interview has been edited and condensed.
