Adam Johnson Trial Verdict

[haway]

Like I asked earlier in their thread, if Sunderland were in possession of all of the evidence why base a decision on whether Johnson was going to plead guilty or not? Why not just sack him on the spot there and then with the damning evidence that is to hand?

I mean I sympathise with that but the issue would be I guess if he was somehow found not guilty he'd have a claim against SAFC. That said, in light of what the club knew I suspect even if he was found not guilty they'd still have had grounds to sack him. I don't understand why they didn't suspend him with pay, imo.

Quite a few people have libelled the club, hopefully their posts have been deleted.

Quote the libellous posts? Lot of people criticising the club but apart from 2 posts about 4 hours ago Ive yet to see libel.

No it was a good post that was spoiled slightly by a auto correct, or a spoonerism.

The latter

 

[jackpunch]

Yes, 100%.
Clubs are multi-million pound businesses now - and the damage to the brand and International reputation of knowingly letting an admitted child sex offender represent the club, is immense.

Look I think Sunderland are seriously in the wrong here (check my earlier post) and I think there's been some very poor decision making from senior people in the club. What I'm trying to say is that. I think other clubs would try to protect their assets first before they take the morally high ground. Perhaps I'm wrong, and every other club would have booted him on receipt of the transcripts. I'd like to think football wont ever have a repeat of this sort of incident, but I'll not be holding my breath.

 

[---Nemo---]

Like I asked earlier in their thread, if Sunderland were in possession of all of the evidence why base a decision on whether Johnson was going to plead guilty or not? Why not just sack him on the spot there and then with the damning evidence that is to hand?

As events proved, a guilty plea allows them to do so. A not guilty plea is a different game altogether. They aren't going to risk being accused of prejudicing a trial, or being sued for wrongful dismissal if he walked and it could have happened, despite the evidence. If they'd sacked him that day his brief would have been talking to the jury about how the club had wronged him.

 

[Rober33]

Like I asked earlier in their thread, if Sunderland were in possession of all of the evidence why base a decision on whether Johnson was going to plead guilty or not? Why not just sack him on the spot there and then with the damning evidence that is to hand?

How on earth do you think SAFC would be in possession of all of the evidence of a criminal trial? Are you being serious here?

As I posted above they could only legally sack him following a thorough investigation, which given it is a criminal case would obviously be best left to the police and court system.

Therefore the key thing regarding his sacking is his innocence or guilt following that investigation, whether the club knew bit's about this or bits about the other is irrelevant.

When he accepted guilt the investigation (for that charge) was completed and they could legally sack him.

 

[Sima]

I mean I sympathise with that but the issue would be I guess if he was somehow found not guilty he'd have a claim against SAFC. That said, in light of what the club knew I suspect even if he was found not guilty they'd still have had grounds to sack him. I don't understand why they didn't suspend him with pay, imo.



Quote the libellous posts? Lot of people criticising the club but apart from 2 posts about 4 hours ago Ive yet to see libel.



The latter

Of course there is that theory but the club maybe morally had the duty of taking legal counsel themselves and with the evidence in hand they would have got a educated enough steer as to what the conclusion of the trial would be on the charges made. I'd agree that they would have had grounds to sack him as well as he has abused his position and his link with the club to commit sexual activity with a minor. If he's not representing the club that the victim supported there's every chance this never happens.

 

[MarcoGoalo]

That wasn't the question though, the question was why didn't Johnson's lawyer tell Sunderland about his plans to plead guilty.

there was an article in the press on the very day he pleaded guilty at the start of the trial and it was something along the lines of there was a lot of panic within the defence team for 10 mins or so then they decided to enter the guilty plea - fuck knows what happened on that morning for them to possibly change

i did post the link in a previous thread but it got pulled and can't remember which paper it was in

 

[Sima]

How on earth do you think SAFC would be in possession of all of the evidence of a criminal trial? Are you being serious here?

As I posted above they could only legally sack him following a thorough investigation, which given it is a criminal case would obviously be best left to the police and court system.

Therefore the key thing regarding his sacking is his innocence or guilt following that investigation, whether the club knew bit's about this or bits about the other is irrelevant.

When he accepted guilt the investigation (for that charge) was completed and they could legally sack him.

The QC in the case has stated what evidence Sunderland were in possession of and it's a good amount of evidence used to bring the conviction. He's brought disrepute onto the club as an employee and used his occupation to commit the crime he has been convicted for.

 

[Rober33]

Quote the libellous posts? Lot of people criticising the club but apart from 2 posts about 4 hours ago Ive yet to see libel.

I'll decline to repeat the libel on a public forum thanks but I don't need to anyway because you've already seen two posts that were libel.

 

[haway]

As events proved, a guilty plea allows them to do so. A not guilty plea is a different game altogether. They aren't going to risk being accused of prejudicing a trial, or being sued for wrongful dismissal if he walked and it could have happened, despite the evidence. If they'd sacked him that day his brief would have been talking to the jury about how the club had wronged him.

I've seen that a lot this thread. Not sure it's true. SAFC could sack him on what was disclosed on the basis what they'd seen showed he had behaved inappropriately (irrespective of whether he was guilty of a criminal offence) without prejudicing the case. Say someone was up for a sexual assault in the club's dressing room, and they said well I had sex with the women in the changing room, but it was consensual, the club could sack him irrespective of whether he was guilt because of the admissions. In the same light, irrespective of whether he was guilty of the offences, they could have sacked him IMO. But as I said before, suspending with pay would have been the sensible option in all this.

 

[cronnyberg]

Yes of course. What @janey, earlier in the thread, seemed to forget when she was talking about how barristers will manipulate the truth is that a barrister is under an obligation not to mislead the court. So while of course they will represent their client's case, and if their client represents information to them in a 'bias' way they will present that 'bias' to the court, no barrister is going to make up what information was given while they were present, or what meetings they were present at. If they were shown to be misleading (in what they personally said about what they'd been present at) they would be in deep shit. If a client tells a legal representative to lie or mislead on their behalf then the legal representative has to stop working for them. That is a fact. Does anyone really think a QC gives anywhere near enough fucks about AJ's case to put his personal and career reputation on the line to try and win one case (of which his client has already pleaded guilty to 2 allegations on?)

The fact is a QC has collaborated in court the key allegations Johnson makes about what SAFC knew. Johnson lied in court, no doubt, but he obviously didn't lie about everything. And when a QC backs up some of what he says, and then SAFC fail to refute the allegations, I think you can draw your own conclusions as to what went on. IMO.

Excellent post. To say that people are jumping to conclusions is a mis-representation IMO. I think it's perfectly fair to say that it's beyond a reasonable doubt that the club knew of the allegations, ESPECIALLY given their statement today.

 

[---Nemo---]

They weren't forced to play him in every game up until the trial, and then make plans to actually make him available for the Man United match while the trial took place. Absolutely nothing would have stopped him from being suspended with full pay. They knew that was the correct option, that is why they did it in the first instance.

I didn't say that.

So presumably something happened to change their minds.

 

[Icarebecauseyoudo]

Has flounders finally packed him in?

Aj won't be able to escape the lawyers even in jail

 

[haway]

I'll decline to repeat the libel on a public forum thanks but I don't need to anyway because you've already seen two posts that were libel.

Well if you only mean those two, then tbf out of a thread of 1600 posts, of which a good 400 have been critical of the club, I don't think 2 libellous posts is too bad... and it shows most the criticism isn't simply slandering the club.

 

[Rober33]

The QC in the case has stated what evidence Sunderland were in possession of and it's a good amount of evidence used to bring the conviction. He's brought disrepute onto the club as an employee and used his occupation to commit the crime he has been convicted for.

So they didn't have all of the evidence then?

How would you expect them to prejudge the outcome of a trial then?

Of course his actions have been damaging to the reputation of the club but I can't see how anything they've done since hearing about the accusations is wrong.

They are one of the parties damaged by Johnson's behaviour as you say.

 

[Deleted member 35145]

I mean I sympathise with that but the issue would be I guess if he was somehow found not guilty he'd have a claim against SAFC. That said, in light of what the club knew I suspect even if he was found not guilty they'd still have had grounds to sack him. I don't understand why they didn't suspend him with pay, imo.



Quote the libellous posts? Lot of people criticising the club but apart from 2 posts about 4 hours ago Ive yet to see libel.



The latter

There would have been no claim against SAFC if he had been suspended on full pay and then found not guilty. That has been establised by caselaw and is the absolute standard procedure for something like this:

The EAT added that if an employee is suspended on full pay whilst disciplinary proceedings are suspended pending the outcome of a criminal investigation, it would be unusual to criticise the employer for the delay incurred.

You must be logged on to see external links

Given that the charge brought at the time made it highly probable that some of the CPS evidence was going to take the form of text messages or internet transcripts (as that is nearly always the evidence that is gathered in a charge related to grooming), then there was no option but to suspend on full pay. This is the charge that was announced in April:

"We have reviewed the available evidence in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and concluded that there is a realistic prospect of conviction and it is in the public interest to charge Adam Johnson with one offence of meeting a child following sexual grooming, contrary to Section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and three offences of sexual activity with a child, contrary to Section 9 of the Sexual Offence Act 2003. The alleged offences date from 30 December 2014 to 26 February 2015."

A criminal lawyer like Byrne will have been able to guess what evidence the CPS had, so will have known to suspend him - and that is what happened.

But then for some reason, according to Johnson's QC, she has lifted the suspension, attended a meeting with Johnson, and asked to actually see what evidence the prosecution have in their possession. Then after reviewing it she has decided to continue to make him available for selection. It's a baffling series of decisions, and so poorly thought out for someone of her experience that I can't see that she has made them alone.

You must be logged on to see external links

 

[Dogbark]

Excellent post. To say that people are jumping to conclusions is a mis-representation IMO. I think it's perfectly fair to say that it's beyond a reasonable doubt that the club knew of the allegations, ESPECIALLY given their statement today.

Christ on a bike

 

[Rober33]

Well if you only mean those two, then tbf out of a thread of 1600 posts, of which a good 400 have been critical of the club, I don't think 2 libellous posts is too bad... and it shows most the criticism isn't simply slandering the club.

I didn't make any attempt to quantify how many people were libelling the club, I haven't even read the majority of the posts, I simply stated that people had done it.

 

[draper]

From the Daily Mail.

. The case also raises questions for Sunderland, who allowed Johnson to continue playing for them even after he told them he had groomed the girl.

There is no ambiguity there. This is going to rumble on for some time and is going to get messy.

 

[Rober33]

There would have been no claim against SAFC if he had been suspended on full pay and then found not guilty. That has been establised by caselaw and is the absolute standard procedure for something like this:

The EAT added that if an employee is suspended on full pay whilst disciplinary proceedings are suspended pending the outcome of a criminal investigation, it would be unusual to criticise the employer for the delay incurred.

You must be logged on to see external links

Given that the charge brought at the time made it highly probable that the CPS had evidence that was going to take the form of text messages or internet transcripts (as that is nearly always the evidence that is gathered in a charge related to grooming), then there was no option but to suspend on full pay. This is the charge that was announced in April:

"We have reviewed the available evidence in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and concluded that there is a realistic prospect of conviction and it is in the public interest to charge Adam Johnson with one offence of meeting a child following sexual grooming, contrary to Section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and three offences of sexual activity with a child, contrary to Section 9 of the Sexual Offence Act 2003. The alleged offences date from 30 December 2014 to 26 February 2015."

A criminal lawyer like Byrne will have been able to guess what evidence the CPS had, so will have known to suspend him - and that is what happened.

But then for some reason, according to Johnson's QC, she has lifted the suspension, attended a meeting with Johnson, and asked to actually see what evidence the prosecution have in their possession. Then after reviewing it she has decided to continue to make him available for selection. It's a baffling series of decisions, and so poorly thought out for someone of her experience that I can't see that she has made them alone.

You must be logged on to see external links

Scraping the barrel now marra.

You want her to sack an employee based on evidence she should be able to guess?!?

 

[haway]

There would have been no claim against SAFC if he had been suspended on full pay and then found not guilty. That has been establised by caselaw and is the absolute standard procedure for something like this:

The EAT added that if an employee is suspended on full pay whilst disciplinary proceedings are suspended pending the outcome of a criminal investigation, it would be unusual to criticise the employer for the delay incurred.

You must be logged on to see external links

Given that the charge brought at the time made it highly probable that the CPS had evidence that was going to take the form of text messages or internet transcripts (as that is nearly always the evidence that is gathered in a charge related to grooming), then there was no option but to suspend on full pay. This is the charge that was announced in April:

"We have reviewed the available evidence in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and concluded that there is a realistic prospect of conviction and it is in the public interest to charge Adam Johnson with one offence of meeting a child following sexual grooming, contrary to Section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and three offences of sexual activity with a child, contrary to Section 9 of the Sexual Offence Act 2003. The alleged offences date from 30 December 2014 to 26 February 2015."

A criminal lawyer like Byrne will have been able to guess what evidence the CPS had, so will have known to suspend him - and that is what happened.

But then for some reason, according to Johnson's QC, she has lifted the suspension, attended a meeting with Johnson, and asked to actually see what evidence the prosecution have in their possession. Then after reviewing it she has decided to continue to make him available for selection. It's a baffling series of decisions, and so poorly thought out for someone of her experience that I can't see that she has made them alone.

You must be logged on to see external links

Yes, I agree entirely.

There is no reason the club couldn't suspend him on full pay (as I said on the board before the trial), and I agree unless the club say otherwise we have no reason to disbelieve the evidence in court from his QC that he was at the meeting when this info was passed. If the club deny it I will reevaluate my opinion, but til then, why would anyone 'believe' the club when the club aren't actually denying any of it?