• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Adam Johnson Trial Verdict

Status
Not open for further replies.
janey said:
That's also the danger of people becoming judge and jury without knowing the full facts other than those that have been in the public domain, which the meeting with Byrne Johnson and his barrister wasn't.
Click to expand...

On the contrary - based on what's been reported of the trial, then unless the line is that Johnson's QC lied in court (surely not), it is quite public.
 

The CPS sentencing guidelines for the offence of sexual activity with a child:

Culpability & Harm
The sentences for public protection must be considered in all cases. They are designed to ensure that sexual offenders are not released into the community if they present a significant risk of serious harm.

The culpability of the offender will be the primary indicator of offence seriousness, and the nature of the sexual activity will provide a guide as to the seriousness of the harm caused to the victim. Other factors will include:
  • the age and degree of vulnerability of the victim - as a general indication, the younger the child, the more vulnerable he or she is likely to be, although older children may also suffer serious and long-term psychological damage as a result of sexual abuse;
  • the age gap between the child and the offender;
  • the youth and immaturity of the offender; and
  • except where it is inherent in an offence, any breach of trust arising from a family relationship between the child and the offender, or from the offender's professional or other responsibility for the child's welfare, will make an offence more serious.
Aggravating & Mitigating Factors
Aggravating
  • Offender ejaculated or caused victim to ejaculate
  • Threats to prevent victim reporting the incident
  • Offender aware that he or she is suffering from a sexually transmitted infection
Mitigating
  • Small disparity in age between the offender and the victim
[I don't think any of the above particularly apply.]

Relevant Sentencing Council Guideline (if any)
  1. Guidelines effective for offences sentenced on or after the 14th May 2007.
  2. The starting points are for an adult offender, of previous good character who was convicted after trial.
  3. The same starting points apply whether the activity was caused or incited. Where an offence was incited but did not take place as a result of the voluntary intervention of the offender, that is likely to reduce the severity of the sentence imposed.
"...no precise guidance can be given. The appropriate sentence is likeley to lie within a very wide braket, depending on all the circumstances of the particular offence. There will be very few cases in which immediate custody is not called for, even in relation to a young offender because the purpose of the legislation is to protect children under 13 from themselves, as well as from others minded to prey on them.

The sentence for S9 and S10 offences is likely to be less where the victim is under 16 rather than under 13" (per Rose LJ in R v Corran and others [2005] 2 Cr.App.R.(S) 73).

[This one applies as she was 15 so the sentence should be reduced]

Type/nature of activity: Penile penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth or penetration of the vagina or anus with another body part or an object
Starting points: 4 years custody
Sentencing ranges: 3 - 7 years custody

Type/nature of activity: Contact between naked genitalia of offender or victim and clothed genitalia of victim or offender or contact with naked genitalia of victim by offender using part of his or her body other than the genitalia or an object
Starting points: 12 months custody
Sentencing ranges: 26 weeks - 2 years custody

Type/nature of activity: Contact between part of offender's body (other than the genitalia) with part of the victim's body (other than the genitalia)
Starting points: Community order
Sentencing ranges: An appropriate non-custodial sentence

Kissing would be the last one, and what he has been convicted of would be the first or second depending on exactly what he did with his fingers...


Grooming is as follows:

Starting points: 18 months custody if the victim is 13 or over but under 16
Sentencing ranges: 12 months - 2 years 6 months custody


As I said 5-10 years seems uplifted by an unusual amount...
 
Some Random Guy said:
If the club knew the following 3 things last May it's a big deal:

- he had been texting the lass
- he had kissed her
- he knew she was 15 when he was doing the above

It comes down to what was in that transcript, if it had him admitting those 3 things the club knew enough in my opinion.

If they had that information in that transcript the club knowingly let us cheer on a man who was going down for grooming.n
Click to expand...

This is it... and the important point is that all of this has been alleged in court and not refuted by the club...
 
janey said:
Just swerve it, as the saying goes it will be next weeks chip wrappers
Click to expand...

actually janey, i think this is going to go on for quite sometime, this isn't going away, not in the current times we live in, you seen with other well known faces, this is just another new play thing for the media, until the next massive story from OYT comes out.
 
janey said:
The police officer said the police had not shared any information about the interviews with the club. He said they had gone to the club the day he was arrested and given them an indication of the, then alleged offences so they could implement any safeguarding requirements.
Click to expand...
I agree Janey.

I also think the versions of what the club knew as indicated by Johnston during the trial are getting mixed up by him saying they knew everything.

Everything according to whose version, Johnston's or the girls. They wouldn't know the girls, so it had to be Johnston's and he has now gone back on his version by pleading guilty and by being found guilty.

I do not think the supporters need to attack the club. It is not going to be easy for anyone connected with the club and its supporters at the moment.
 
bowers2 said:
It really has nothing to do with you.
It was between the employee and the employer.
Click to expand...

This is the point. It doesn't matter what the club thought, or thought they knew. He was entitled to a fair trial free from prejudice like anyone else and any action by the club based on 'gut feeling' or morals might have jeopardised the whole trial. How could he stand a fair chance in court if his employers had acted as judge, jury and executioner? After all they were 'in the know'.

He apparently gave the impression he was fighting this, he had representation from the PFA and the club had to do and be seen to do everything above board and correctly. The club have said that they undertook risk assessments and safeguarding, what more could they do? What would you expect your employers to do if you were accused of something, take the law into their own hands? Johnson fucked the club over by misleading them into thinking he was pleading not guilty. By doing that their hand was forced and by changing his plea on day 1 of the trial the club have been left looking like mugs.
 
FanchesterCity said:
He is not being made an example of.
There are very clear guidelines on the levels of sexual misconduct and the sentencing guidelines associated with them.

It's actually very formulaic approach which (in theory) should help avoid whacky sentences (although there have been cases where strange sentences have been meted out, they've usually been corrected later)
Click to expand...

Yes- I have quoted them - see above...
 
Redcar said:
It was for the court to decide whether he was guilty . The club should not have let him fully represent them for that period of time simple as that.
Click to expand...
WTF! He told the club he was pleading not guilty. He did so right up until the trial.
If they should not let him "fully represent them" how much representing could he do???
Here to be a wum as per.
 
haway said:
I would delete that if you can because while I think it's ok, we don't want anyone doing 'anything that can ID a victim' and it'll only take one reply and a criminal offence is committed. Just my advice.
Click to expand...
It's a public statement read out by the police.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gaz
Would of sacked him if they knew he was going to plead guilty?
This really is a terrible statement from the club
They are not saying in anyway they did not know what happened in his car and that they did not hear the statement made to police by Johnson,inwhich he stated he had done the charges he pleaded guilty for.
The court heard the club knew
But it doesn't say who told the court.
 
Howard the Duck said:
I'm not defending the club but how does all that work with the trial? If the club sacked him when being presented with the evidence held by the defence lawyer but knew/thought he was going to plead not guilty would they not be deemed to be interfering with the case? It was in the hands of a court and jury to decide his guilt (if the not guilty pleas had been submitted as the club were told), they surely don't have the processes or authority to act above a court of law.

If the club were presented with the texts and an admission but were told there would be a plea of not guilty then that evidence must have been presented with a lot of spin or some sort of concealment. Otherwise it just doesn't work and the clubs denial that they knew he was pleading guilty doesn't stack up and they wouldn't lie about that in a public statement.
Click to expand...

Should have suspended with pay imo. In no way prejudices the case.
 
He pleaded guilty so got sacked, they had every right to include him while he told them he was innocent. They also had every right to sack the perverted tw&t when he admitted grooming a child.
 
Norton said:
WTF! He told the club he was pleading not guilty. He did so right up until the trial.
If they should not let him "fully represent them" how much representing could he do???
Here to be a wum as per.
Click to expand...
Suspended with full pay. Next.
 
ProfessionalMackem said:
What's this craic about pubes?
Click to expand...
apparently he trims or shaves them, the girl had reported the lack of foliage downstairs, there was a photo involved, girl said he was shaved, his lass said trimmed not shaved, key point of dispute as to whether or not she was lying about a certain act,

f***ing beyond weird. Not quite sure what light Fletcher was supposed to shine on that like.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top