• 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.
Some Random Guy said:
AJ has sound judgement? :lol:


Does it matter?
Click to expand...

I was referring to his lawyer who said he was at the meeting and it absolutely does matter that she was referred to as the CEO of SAFC and not Margaret Byrne. As her professional role is CEO of SAFC (in which capacity she was acting in all of the evidence) and not Margaret Byrne (acting in a private capacity).
 

haway said:
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.
Click to expand...
Corroborated mate.
 
Sima said:
She wasn't named was she? Just referred to as the CEO of SAFC.
Click to expand...

Seemed that way from the journos tweeting about it and from the reports afterwards. Regardless, we only have one CEO so who we all know who it is, hence why she has been personally named in all the reports as being present. She can come out and make the statement as just the CEO then and not attach her name to it, we'd all still know who the CEO is and therefore exactly what they personally learned in the meeting and what they did with what they found out.
 
Sima said:
That wasn't the question though, the question was why didn't Johnson's lawyer tell Sunderland about his plans to plead guilty.
Click to expand...

Because I doubt Johnson told his lawyers he was planning to plead guilty.

From what I know, Johnson has admitted the stuff in interview. He's then kept pleading not guilty. You can admit putting a knife in someone's neck in an interview but choose to plead not guilty throughout proceedings, if you choose to do so. My best guess is he's kept pleading not guilty, his lawyers have been advising him he's fucked, and it's not until the last minute he's decided to plead.

Also, people can agree with their lawyers not to plead guilty at a certain point, even if they suggest they're going to plead later.

The issue (I think) comes if a client admits to their lawyer they're guilty but asks them to defend them in court on the basis they're innocent (e.g. at the trial).

It's quite common I think a defendant will say to their lawyer early on in proceedings well I did X and Y but I'm not admitting to Z, and the lawyer will submit not guilty pleas to X Y and Z initially (so the defendant stays out of custody) for a year or whatever, but then plead to X and Y nearer the trial and defend Z. The issue would be if the client turned round and said 'well I did do X and Y, but I still want you defend me on it in trial, and pretend I didn't do it'.
 
Redan_White said:
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.
Click to expand...

There was some guidance about how to deal with an employee accused of a criminal offence posted on here a couple of days ago. When you read through it properly it boiled down to the fact that the club could only safely sack someone following a thorough investigation.

I would assume the club were not in a position to investigate this (certainly not the best people to investigate it) with the ongoing criminal case which would mean that they could not legally sack him.

They suspended him when he was first accused and then allowed him back after discussions with the PFA and following legal advice and advice about safeguarding given the nature of the allegations.

Once he has pleaded guilty that brings a conclusion to the investigation for at least the crimes that he pleaded guilty to and they could legally sack him.

Not sure what the club has done wrong here? Some people seem desperate to see the club in a bad light regardless of the truth and are more than happy to libel them on here.
 
Sima said:
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?
Click to expand...

I didn't suggest anything of the sort. What I'm suggesting is that the club were left in a position where they were forced to consider their decision in the light of presumption of innocence and that his client's stated intention was to plead not guilty to all charges. He too was in possession of the facts, I wonder what his advice to his client had been at that point? Bet he was struggling to contain a snigger. :)
 
IMO what SAFC did was wrong and they've fucked up... but that's on a moral level... there's absolutely no way in hell anyone could challenge in a court that we stayed up ahead of them. That's the last thing I'd worry about.
 
Rober33 said:
There was some guidance about how to deal with an employee accused of a criminal offence posted on here a couple of days ago. When you read through it properly it boiled down to the fact that the club could only safely sack someone following a thorough investigation.

I would assume the club were not in a position to investigate this (certainly not the best people to investigate it) with the ongoing criminal case which would mean that they could not legally sack him.

They suspended him when he was first accused and then allowed him back after discussions with the PFA and following legal advice and advice about safeguarding given the nature of the allegations.

Once he has pleaded guilty that brings a conclusion to the investigation for at least the crimes that he pleaded guilty to and they could legally sack him.

Not sure what the club has done wrong here? Some people seem desperate to see the club in a bad light regardless of the truth and are more than happy to libel them on here.
Click to expand...

No-one is libelling them, they are merely asking questions as to why the majority of the accusations haven't been refuted in the mealy-mouthed statement they put out. They have only refuted the claim that Johnson told them that he would plead guilty and not any of the others levied.
 
---Nemo--- said:
I didn't suggest anything of the sort. What I'm suggesting is that the club were left in a position where they were forced to consider their decision in the light of presumption of innocence and that his client's stated intention was to plead not guilty to all charges. He too was in possession of the facts, I wonder what his advice to his client had been at that point? Bet he was struggling to contain a snigger. :)
Click to expand...

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?
 
Sgt Pepper said:
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.
Click to expand...
... named in her role as CEO of SAFC... she met him in club offices... as her role as SAFC... whether she was named as 'ceo of safc', Margaret byrne or that hint who used to be a lawyer it doesn't matter... the role she was ACTING in at the meetings was that of a representative of the club, not in a personal capacity.
 
haway said:
First time I've been picked up on a typo on here in a good year, it's been a long day, leave me alone :lol::lol::lol:
Click to expand...
No it was a good post that was spoiled slightly by a auto correct, or a spoonerism.
 
---Nemo--- said:
I didn't suggest anything of the sort. What I'm suggesting is that the club were left in a position where they were forced to consider their decision in the light of presumption of innocence and that his client's stated intention was to plead not guilty to all charges. He too was in possession of the facts, I wonder what his advice to his client had been at that point? Bet he was struggling to contain a snigger. :)
Click to expand...

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.
 
Sima said:
No-one is libelling them, they are merely asking questions as to why the majority of the accusations haven't been refuted in the mealy-mouthed statement they put out. They have only refuted the claim that Johnson told them that he would plead guilty and not any of the others levied.
Click to expand...

Quite a few people have libelled the club, hopefully their posts have been deleted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top