• 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.
Reiver said:
Of course people lie in court, that was exactly my point.
Click to expand...

Sorry mate - misunderstood!

If the club does come out and categorically deny the accusations then, at the end of the day, people will believe what they want to but at least they will have gone on record with a full denial. At the moment, there are people like me who really want to believe they were in the dark but are struggling to without such a statement.

Of course, such a statement might read along the lines of 'We already said in our previous that we were under the impression Johnson was going to plead not guilty. Do you really think this would have been the case if he had already confessed to us and we'd seen transcripts of those messages, along with transcripts of a police interview in which he had already confessed - you bunch of f***ing idiots' and to be fair, I'd be happy with that.
 

andymcnish said:
Except totally wrong..the code is very explicit about what a barrister can and can't do when a client has admitted guilt to him in private. He is allowed to let the defendant plead not guilty and put the prosecution to proof. But he isn't allowed to put forward facts inconsistent with the admission.
Delaying guilty pleas until the last moment has been standard practice for various reasons for at least the last 70 years
Click to expand...

Yup. Nail on head. The barrister can enter pleas of not guilty etc. what he can't do is:

12.2 It follows that the mere fact that a person charged with a crime has confessed to his counsel that he did commit the offence charged is no bar to that barrister appearing or continuing to appear in his defence, nor indeed does such a confession release the barrister from his imperative duty to do all that he honourably can for his client.

12.3 Such a confession, however, imposes very strict limitations on the conduct of the defence. a barrister must not assert as true that which he knows to be false. He must not connive at, much less attempt to substantiate, a fraud.

12.4 While, therefore, it would be right to take any objections to the competency of the Court, to the form of the indictment, to the admissibility of any evidence or to the evidence admitted, it would be wrong to suggest that some other person had committed the offence charged, or to call any evidence which the barrister must know to be false having regard to the confession, such, for instance, as evidence in support of an alibi. In other words, a barrister must not (whether by calling the defendant or otherwise) set up an affirmative case inconsistent with the confession made to him.
 
Sima said:
So they can suspend on full pay then? Like I said?
Click to expand...

Yes, and he was. It's the length of suspension that I'm referring to. You can't just suspend someone indefinitely, like some people seem to think you can. Hope this helps.
 
Whether Margaret Byrne and the board knew some of the detail, the fact is they are not criminal lawyers, so are not qualified to adjudicate.

Added to this, until the start of the case, AJ was pleading not guilty to all charges, so at some point in time between his various court appearances, where he consistently pleaded not guilty to all charges, and the trial starting, his legal advice changed two of the pleas to guilty, and that was not known until that point, and at that point Sunderland acted immediately and sacked him - I fail to see what more they could have done.

Lots and lots of folks can now look back with 20:20 hindsight and say we should have done this or that, but I think the club has handled an extremely delicate matter pretty well, all things considered, treading a very careful path between the 'innocent until proved otherwise' position and the seriousness of the accusations. Yes the red tops will try to have a field day and accuse the club of taking the charges lightly, but I can't see how suspending him on full pay for a year - in reality the only other thing they could have done - would have been any better AT THE TIME. Clearly, with 20:20 hindsight, that would have been the correct course of action.
 
haway said:
Da foooook? How did you manage to bring the N word into this reply?

Nope, he'll get 3 or 4 years, out in 2. The starting point for murder (remember it's life, so your sentence isn't halfed), is 15 years. Show me a murder where an adult aged over 21 got less than 5 years and I'll show you a complete f***ing legal anomaly.
Click to expand...

You must be logged on to see external links


2 known cases of single day sentences for murder in the UK - fair enough, it was because they both died one day in to their sentences but hey-ho :lol:
 
What do you all want from all of this now boring chewing of the fat. No good can come of snything, our best player has transgressed and is about to be punished for it. The club has lost a good player. Everyone is a loser, it has now gone beyond a joke. What will it take to satisfy you.
 
haway said:
Da foooook? How did you manage to bring the N word into this reply?

Nope, he'll get 3 or 4 years, out in 2. The starting point for murder (remember it's life, so your sentence isn't halfed), is 15 years. Show me a murder where an adult aged over 21 got less than 5 years and I'll show you a complete f***ing legal anomaly.
Click to expand...

Ok I should have said killers, or perhaps rapists?
Hasn't the judge said at least 4 years?

Anyway bored of the bickering on here.
 
theinediblebulk said:
No, i was just referring to length of time that suspension can be placed on someone, and it quite clearly states it has to be kept to a minimum and has to be reviewed. Just with people seeming to think you can suspend someone for however long you want, which isn't the case.
Click to expand...

Yes but keeping something to the minimum would normally still be until after the child sex offence you're up for committing at the premises of your employer while in your role as an employee :lol::lol::lol:
 
Sima said:
Yes you can, on full pay.
Click to expand...

You not bother reading the bit about what legally you can do on UNISON's site regarding the fact it has to be dealt with as swiftly as possible then. Here it is again.

Length of suspension: Your employer needs to do what they can to resolve the issue swiftly and keep the suspension to a minimum. Your employer should keep the suspension decision under review.
 
Stevos said:
Sorry mate - misunderstood!

If the club does come out and categorically deny the accusations then, at the end of the day, people will believe what they want to but at least they will have gone on record with a full denial. At the moment, there are people like me who really want to believe they were in the dark but are struggling to without such a statement.

Of course, such a statement might read along the lines of 'We already said in our previous that we were under the impression Johnson was going to plead not guilty. Do you really think this would have been the case if he had already confessed to us and we'd seen transcripts of those messages, along with transcripts of a police interview in which he had already confessed - you bunch of f***ing idiots' and to be fair, I'd be happy with that.
Click to expand...

:lol: :lol: :lol:
 
haway said:
Yes but keeping something to the minimum would normally still be until after the child sex offence you're up for committing at the premises of your employer while in your role as an employee :lol::lol::lol:
Click to expand...

Would it? The club took legal independent advice, spoke with outside agencies and also with the PFA. After those discussions, the suspension was lifted. But obviously people on a message board would know more about those processes than everyone who was involved in those discussions. Not saying it's right, just that's the way it is.
 
redgauntlet said:
What do you all want from all of this now boring chewing of the fat. No good can come of snything, our best player has transgressed and is about to be punished for it. The club has lost a good player. Everyone is a loser, it has now gone beyond a joke. What will it take to satisfy you.
Click to expand...
I'm imagining probably heads on sticks :confused:
 
Does this place still have a 90 posts per day cap? If so, a good few on this thread will disappear soon :lol:
 
theinediblebulk said:
You not bother reading the bit about what legally you can do on UNISON's site regarding the fact it has to be dealt with as swiftly as possible then. Here it is again.

Length of suspension: Your employer needs to do what they can to resolve the issue swiftly and keep the suspension to a minimum. Your employer should keep the suspension decision under review.
Click to expand...

Jesus Wept. Stop quoting something that doesn't matter.

If you are a teacher, and you are accused of touching a child, how long do you think keeping the suspension at the minimum would be? 1 week? 2 weeks? No, until after the trial. Take out teacher in that statement and replace it with 'doctor', 'lawyer' or 'policeman' or any job where you have a position of responsibility.

Now, in AJ's case, he was accused of using his job as a footballer to exploit vulnerable children and did so on club premises. 'Keeping the suspension to a minimum' would involve suspending him until after the trial. Nobody is saying he should have been suspended forever and ever until the end of time.

theinediblebulk said:
Would it? The club took legal independent advice, spoke with outside agencies and also with the PFA. After those discussions, the suspension was lifted. But obviously people on a message board would know more about those processes than everyone who was involved in those discussions. Not saying it's right, just that's the way it is.
Click to expand...

Name a job where you are in a position of trust and you wouldn't be suspended with pay. I'm hardly pretending to know the intricacies of employment law - this is just standard f***ing practice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top