• 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.
haway said:
Aye, I am. As I said earlier in the thread I spent 3 years working for a law firm part time in my holidays writing up court proceedings and meetings and basically keeping notes on everything discussed. But obviously I was under the same confidentiality issues.
Click to expand...

Why are you talking about it now on a public forum then! ;)
 

haway said:
Well if they did that then they should be pillared too. But if that is the case then SAFC should tell us, because everyone would understand why they kept playing him if the PFA had warned it might be illegal if they didn't or whatever. The ball is somewhat in SAFC's court to tell us this if the PFA put them in a difficult position.
Click to expand...
IIRC, the PFA managed to get a club fucked over for sending an asshat of a player to train with the reserves - they claimed that it would affect his future earnings potential not being able to train with the first team.
 
haway said:
Aye, I am. As I said earlier in the thread I spent 3 years working for a law firm part time in my holidays writing up court proceedings and meetings and basically keeping notes on everything discussed. But obviously I was under the same confidentiality issues.
Click to expand...

Wow, that's quite a holiday :lol:
 
Must be bored said:
Sure I read somewhere that AJ had waived his right to confidentiality regarding that meeting in order for the transcripts to be used as evidence, with respect to the club being informed. This might only apply to during the trial and not give his QC free reign to discuss things more broadly but then if that is true surely the same applies to SAFC and they can't discuss details of this meeting either, which is exactly what we're all asking them to do?
Click to expand...

Lol
 
Must be bored said:
Sure I read somewhere that AJ had waived his right to confidentiality regarding that meeting in order for the transcripts to be used as evidence, with respect to the club being informed. This might only apply to during the trial and not give his QC free reign to discuss things more broadly but then if that is true surely the same applies to SAFC and they can't discuss details of this meeting either, which is exactly what we're all asking them to do?
Click to expand...

I could be wrong but I think I read that he had to get permission from Johnson so he could disclose that he was at that meeting.

I think it was all a big game for the benefit of the jury because they had no other evidence to suggest he wasn't worried about losing his job if he plead guilty.
 
Must be bored said:
Sure I read somewhere that AJ had waived his right to confidentiality regarding that meeting in order for the transcripts to be used as evidence, with respect to the club being informed. This might only apply to during the trial and not give his QC free reign to discuss things more broadly but then if that is true surely the same applies to SAFC and they can't discuss details of this meeting either, which is exactly what we're all asking them to do?
Click to expand...

But the confidentiality between an employer and employee isn't the same as the confidentiality between a lawyer and his client. As far as I'm aware there is no obligation for an employer to observe confidentiality between them and their client... but there always is between a QC and their client.

AJ might have waived his right to confidentiality, I don't know, I've never seen that suggested. But I wouldn't have thought it would apply to the barrister having a free for all to say what he wants, if he did I think it would relate to legal privilege meaning he waived privilege to confidentiality with his QC for the purposes of the trial. But as I say, I haven't seen that anywhere, so that's complete speculation.
 
haway said:
Aye, I am. As I said earlier in the thread I spent 3 years working for a law firm part time in my holidays writing up court proceedings and meetings and basically keeping notes on everything discussed. But obviously I was under the same confidentiality issues.
Click to expand...
Fair play. I've signed more of them than I care to remember, but not to do with court details.
 
haway said:
Aye, I am. As I said earlier in the thread I spent 3 years working for a law firm part time in my holidays writing up court proceedings and meetings and basically keeping notes on everything discussed. But obviously I was under the same confidentiality issues.
Click to expand...
Fuck'n christ.
 
Must be bored said:
Sure I read somewhere that AJ had waived his right to confidentiality regarding that meeting in order for the transcripts to be used as evidence, with respect to the club being informed. This might only apply to during the trial and not give his QC free reign to discuss things more broadly but then if that is true surely the same applies to SAFC and they can't discuss details of this meeting either, which is exactly what we're all asking them to do?
Click to expand...


he did this came out in the trial, it allowed what legal advice he'd been given to be made public knowledge
 
theinediblebulk said:
The QC wasn't asked to release any documents to the Guardian though. They've been asked if Sunderland knew about the full details of the offences, which is what is being claimed. How does answering yes or no to that break confidentiality?
Click to expand...

Because it would still be under legal confidentiality? Legal confidentiality wouldn't just be what someone said to you, it would be who you gave documents to etc.

If a client got a psychiatric assessment, and someone who knew he saw a psychiatrist, said 'did the psychiatrist have a copy of the CPN's assessment?' or whatever, I don't think you'd be in a position to reply. It's confidential.
 
haway said:
Aye, I am. As I said earlier in the thread I spent 3 years working for a law firm part time in my holidays writing up court proceedings and meetings and basically keeping notes on everything discussed. But obviously I was under the same confidentiality issues.
Click to expand...


I smell bullshit lol
 
haway said:
Yup, but if they can legitimately blame the PFA then it's shit PR to allow this to fester.
Click to expand...
Not until they've had it out with the PFA first. At least the club haven't come out slinging wild accusations about. They've remained dignified for now, and not got into a slanging match. When I start to read some of the stuff from the press, and the police, it's often contradictory, and they're starting to tie themselves up in knots, over who said what. Much like this thread.
 
haway said:
Aye, I am. As I said earlier in the thread I spent 3 years working for a law firm part time in my holidays writing up court proceedings and meetings and basically keeping notes on everything discussed. But obviously I was under the same confidentiality issues.
Click to expand...
Hold on, so you absolutely slated the experience I said I had but you are claiming you know it all because you worked for a law firm part time taking notes, bloody hell :lol::lol:
 
haway said:
Because it would still be under legal confidentiality? Legal confidentiality wouldn't just be what someone said to you, it would be who you gave documents to etc.

If a client got a psychiatric assessment, and someone who knew he saw a psychiatrist, said 'did the psychiatrist have a copy of the CPN's assessment?' or whatever, I don't think you'd be in a position to reply. It's confidential.
Click to expand...

Mate, I'm not arsed about examples from elsewhere. They're not relevant to the discussion about what the club did or didn't know. I was asking about the confidentiality stuff as I have no experience of any of it, and you do, and I always find it helpful to get information from someone who is more informed than myself over the issue.

So if there's a confidentiality clause between Johnson and his QC and it needed Johnson to give his QC permission to give information over what was discussed to the club, and that same confidentiality clause would prevent his QC from answering press questions, would the club not need permission to reveal what information they received due to the confidentiality issue to answer the same press questions?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top