• 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.
Botchie said:
I have an eight year old daughter who has a season ticket and has already visited 14 different grounds. I have explained everything to her and why what he has done is wrong. I can understand taking pictures down out of his kids room, but not taking him to the match is just daft. He might as well lock him under the stairs. I've told my daughter that Johnson is nothing to do with us anymore and to forget about him. I wouldn't force her to go to the game if she felt she didn't want to because of this. My policy is to be honest and open and let the kids choose themselves.
Click to expand...
Great parenting
 

haway said:
Don't judges always say they won't accept a majority verdict and need a unanimous verdict, and then change it later?

Judges will always ask for unanimous. And wasn't what the judge said not that he 'wouldn't accept a majority' but that he needed a unanimous one and that it wasn't guaranteed he would be in a position to accept a majority one later?
Click to expand...
Are you trying to claim that judges always lie in court?

What the frigging fuck!?!
 
haway said:
As I said before, the answer I think is that 1) the legal privilege AJ waived is only in respect to his confidentiality with his QC being now admissible in court. That means the court are entitled to know things they wouldn't have been otherwise. It doesn't mean ALL confidentiality is waived, so the QC couldn't suddenly set up a website saying everything AJ said to him. So no, I don't think legal privilege being waived means the QC can say things to the media. 2) This I am more sure on, again as I said before. Confidentiality between an employee and an employer isn't as strict as that between a QC and his client. So no, the fact the QC has confidentiality issues in no way means the club does.

I would happily be corrected by someone who has reason to think that is wrong though, and the reason I wasn't authoritative in my earlier reply is because I am not 100% sure.
Click to expand...

Where's legal privilege come from, or is that just a different term for confidentiality?

Point 2. The club got information from the QC though, which I'm guessing their employee Johnson, allowed to happen. So Johnson's waived his right for his discussions with his QC to remain confidential in order to provide the club with information. Hopefully, I've managed to get that bit right.

But does that mean then that Sunderland are free to divulge that information to the press, seeing as they received it under certain circumstances.? As I would have thought that any information they received would have been agreed to be given to them but that doesn't mean they have permission to give out that information. Or does it?

And if it was down to confidentiality as to why the QC wouldn't answer press questions, surely they would have said that to the Guardian rather than not responding at all.
 
AlpineExile said:
I was told today that a member of the jury made the judge aware of a prearranged appointment that couldn't be changed, which is why the judge agreed to accept a majority verdict.

Worryingly I was told it could be part of Johnson's appeal.

I have no idea how true any of that is or how the person who told me knew about it because I haven't seen it printed anywhere but I hope it doesn't give Johnson an excuse to mount an appeal and drag this on for even longer.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]
That did happen
 
AlpineExile said:
I was told today that a member of the jury made the judge aware of a prearranged appointment that couldn't be changed, which is why the judge agreed to accept a majority verdict.

Worryingly I was told it could be part of Johnson's appeal.

I have no idea how true any of that is or how the person who told me knew about it because I haven't seen it printed anywhere but I hope it doesn't give Johnson an excuse to mount an appeal and drag this on for even longer.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

I don't believe that the juror should not do his job but these things do happen and I don't think it would have changed the result of the case if the jurors we're already at 10-2. The judge would have accepted that eventually I assume.

I hope it doesn't give Johnson reason to appeal because I don't want this to drag on any longer.
 
theinediblebulk said:
Where's legal privilege come from, or is that just a different term for confidentiality?

Point 2. The club got information from the QC though, which I'm guessing their employee Johnson, allowed to happen. So Johnson's waived his right for his discussions with his QC to remain confidential in order to provide the club with information. Hopefully, I've managed to get that bit right.

But does that mean then that Sunderland are free to divulge that information to the press, seeing as they received it under certain circumstances.? As I would have thought that any information they received would have been agreed to be given to them but that doesn't mean they have permission to give out that information. Or does it?

And if it was down to confidentiality as to why the QC wouldn't answer press questions, surely they would have said that to the Guardian rather than not responding at all.
Click to expand...

1) legal privilege is the privilege between confidentiality between a lawyer and a client, it has special legal meaning and has extra protections, like medical confidentiality.
2) No because AJ can instruct the club to release info to SAFC but not 'in general'. It's like if someone was defending you and you gave them permission to disclose the papers to your wife, it doesn't mean if your sister asks for them the lawyer can disclose them to the sister. The lawyer can only disclose to exactly who the client says.
3) If SAFC specifically signed an agreement they wouldn't release it then yes. But if it was just in a standard meeting they wouldn't. If confidentiality was an issue why wouldn't SAFC just say 'look, we would give specifics but unfortunately we are bound by an agreement not to release this info'?
 
Mainze said:
Aye, hoyed a Di Canio Nazi salute in for good measure too :lol:

I agree that the club needs to be held accountable for their part in this complete cluster fuck, but some of this witch hunt journalism is cringeworthy now.
Click to expand...
Agree. There are some, though, who are glorying in that rag putting the boot in to our club.
 

I don't believe that the juror should not do his job but these things do happen and I don't think it would have changed the result of the case if the jurors we're already at 10-2. The judge would have accepted that eventually I assume.

I hope it doesn't give Johnson reason to appeal because I don't want this to drag on any longer.[/QUOTE]

Even if he does appeal, he's still going to get sentenced for the two offences he's pleaded guilty to as he's got no f***ing hope of appealing them. So he could get sentenced to all three, have to take the sentencing for two of them and would be appealing the one charge that he pleaded not guilty to. So if Judge gave him 2-3 years for the two charges he's plead guilty to, and say 5 for the one he contested, he's still off to jail while the appeal is heard.
 
theinediblebulk said:
Even if he does appeal, he's still going to get sentenced for the two offences he's pleaded guilty to as he's got no f***ing hope of appealing them. So he could get sentenced to all three, have to take the sentencing for two of them and would be appealing the one charge that he pleaded not guilty to. So if Judge gave him 2-3 years for the two charges he's plead guilty to, and say 5 for the one he contested, he's still off to jail while the appeal is heard.
Click to expand...

Could well have been non-custodial for the first two offences though, especially since he pleaded before the trial so would get a discount.
 
theinediblebulk said:
I don't believe that the juror should not do his job but these things do happen and I don't think it would have changed the result of the case if the jurors we're already at 10-2. The judge would have accepted that eventually I assume.

I hope it doesn't give Johnson reason to appeal because I don't want this to drag on any longer.
Click to expand...



This is Sunderland mate ....... he'll get an extra year for making a frivolous appeal ;)
 
Mainze said:
Its not a bad thing, the more two bit Journo's go OTT the less people will give a shit and stop reading it, then we can move on.
Click to expand...

Not sure that's how public opinion works mind, most people are swayed pretty easily.

EDIT: Have a look at Ladz and Lenz (sp) study of the '97 election. They found the Sun choosing to come out in favour of Labour accounted for 20% of their majority.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top