Adam Johnson Trial Verdict

[TAFKAHM]

Not this shit again, a godawful smear campaign backed up by one of the worst photoshops to be put into mass circulation.

I'm asking the question, not a statement....

 

[Sima]

I'd like to ask my silvery tongued learned friend if at any point during this meeting he informed the club that his client was intending to plead guilty.

No because he would be in a massive breach of his agreement of client confidentiality.

 

[redandwhiterob]

Even if someone was proven of lying in court, and they made untrue allegations against me I would refute them. Who wouldn't, and why wouldn't you?

I agree Johnson has lied, but the allegation that both he and his QC made up being in a meeting with Byrne is a bit far fetched imo. The QC would be struck off if it was shown he said he was in a meeting with Byrne in court which he wasn't.

People clutching at straws. Been a play now worry about consequences later attitude to this and it's come from the very very top of the club imo

 

[the sleeping giant]

It says the complete opposite...

We must misunderstand each other.

I'm saying that the club states they had no justification to act earlier than they did - I have no evidence to the contrary and I'm not sure what Johnsons QC is suggesting by stating they did.

 

[---Nemo---]

No because he would be in a massive breach of his agreement of client confidentiality.

First rule of being a barrister, only ask questions that you know the answer to.

 

[Sgt Pepper]

Why should she come out in her own name? As CEO she was acting in executive power of Sunderland Football Club, not as Margaret Byrne. Every decision she made regarding this she made in the name of the club.

She was named personally in court, it wasn't vague with 'representatives' or 'officials' of the club, so if anyone is to come out and say something I'd like it personally come from her since she was the one present at the meeting and the one named in court.

 

[timeforheroes1]

People clutching at straws. Been a play now worry about consequences later attitude to this and it's come from the very very top of the club imo

Agree with this, head in sand and it will all go away by the club and johnson till reality has hit home

 

[Sima]

First rule of being a barrister, only ask questions that you know the answer to.

You've lost me, what's your point? First you suggested that Johnson's lawyer should have told Sunderland about Johnson planning to plead guilty so not sure where you are going with this?

 

[oddjob]

Nobody on this board knows the extent of what they were aware of, I'm sure they've had lots of legal advice and didn't knock that statement up on the back of a Regal packet

No, you're absolutely right fella.

I just don't get why a QC would state that he attended a meeting where the evidence, along with Johnsons admission to what he had done was presented to Byne if the meeting or conversation did not happen.

 

[Sima]

She was named personally in court, it wasn't vague with 'representatives' or 'officials' of the club, so if anyone is to come out and say something I'd like it personally come from her since she was the one present at the meeting and the one named in court.

She wasn't named was she? Just referred to as the CEO of SAFC.

 

[Some Random Guy]

No because he would be in a massive breach of his agreement of client confidentiality.

It's been a long time since I did law because I was f***ing shite at it but aren't barristers obliged to tell the crown if a client is guilty? Solicitors can be as underhand as they like in that position, sure barristers can't be.

 

[Redan_White]

May Byrnes hands not have been tied with him going not guilty making sacking him impossible 'if' she was tied by confidentiality. Don't know the way the law works here.

 

[Some Random Guy]

She wasn't named was she? Just referred to as the CEO of SAFC.

She's the CEO.

 

[Sima]

No, you're absolutely right fella.

I just don't get why a QC would state that he attended a meeting where the evidence, along with Johnsons admission to what he had done was presented to Byne if the meeting or conversation did not happen.

It's absolutely conceivable that he would commit perjury against a company with the financial might that comes with being an elite sporting club. Seems like sound judgement to me.

 

[Some Random Guy]

May Byrnes hands not have been tied with him going not guilty making sacking him impossible 'if' she was tied by confidentiality. Don't know the way the law works here.

Could have just sent him home for a year and told him to take care of his personal issues.

 

[Sima]

She's the CEO.

Yes but she wasn't actually named was she? She was referred to as the CEO of SAFC as that is the power in which she was acting, in her professional role and not in her private role as Margaret Byrne.

 

[Some Random Guy]

It's absolutely conceivable that he would commit perjury against a company with the financial might that comes with being an elite sporting club. Seems like sound judgement to me.

AJ has sound judgement?

Yes but she wasn't actually named was she? She was referred to as the CEO of SAFC as that is the power in which she was acting, in her professional role and not in her private role as Margaret Byrne.

Does it matter?

 

[ftm1974]

It is, I agree, but to be fair do you really think any other PL clubs would have dealt with it differently.

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.

 

[Sima]

It's been a long time since I did law because I was f***ing shite at it but aren't barristers obliged to tell the crown if a client is guilty? Solicitors can be as underhand as they like in that position, sure barristers can't be.

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

 

[haway]

nail on head, hence why Byrne or the club won't challenge the QC's statements in court as they haven't got a leg to stand on

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.