Whether it’s alcohol, low self-esteem or not getting into Oxford, guilty men often seem to deploy the worst mitigating claims

Among the many unedifying aspects of the fall of Huw Edwards has been a possible glimpse into how the man sees himself. At the hearing on Monday, the chief magistrate, Paul Goldspring, held Edwards firmly responsible for his own actions – namely, being in possession of sexually explicit images of children – and gave him a suspended six-month sentence. But while Edwards’ barrister said the former presenter “apologises sincerely” and acknowledged the “repugnant” nature of the images, the narrative that the defence team offered during the hearing sought to tell a less contrite and more familiar story.

You take with a pinch of salt the testimony of expert witnesses, of course. What is fascinating about the opinions put forth about Edwards by psychiatrists and therapists introduced by his legal team is that they were thought sufficiently compelling – and sympathy-inducing – to act as mitigation for a crime this serious. Factors introduced by the defence team ran the gamut from mental anguish brought on by Edwards’ emotionally abusive father, to his repressed sexuality, to the much-mocked contention that Edwards’ failure to get into Oxford contributed to lifelong issues with self-esteem – a claim so audacious you almost had to admire it. A case as serious as this is a tough gig for the best of lawyers, and at some level – hats off – they gave it a punt.