• 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:
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.
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt that mind and if they had done the same brief would have been telling the jury a completely different story to the one he actually delivered. :)

I'd guess they considered that, only they really know why they didn't choose that option.
 
draper said:
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.
Click to expand...
More than likely noone will ever find out what "really" happened and everyone will get bored and move onto the next moral panic
 
Rober33 said:
Scraping the barrel now marra.

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

His post clearly says suspended on full pay, not sacked, and as the post goes on to say, given it appears the club had the police station deps. and whatsapp messages later on anyway, had the information.
 
Skellington said:
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
Click to expand...

Can we just acknowledge the elephant in the room and admit that SAFC possibly saw him as a diminishing commodity and made a call to make the most of him whilst he's available.

Does football suddenly have a moral conscience?
 
Some Random Guy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not sure about that but I know for a fact solicitors are obliged to tell the court if the defendant has no intention of turning up at court. So never ever tell your brief your f***ing off to Holland before the trail date. That's a bad idea.
 
haway said:
His post clearly says suspended on full pay, not sacked, and as the post goes on to say, given it appears the club had the police station deps. and whatsapp messages later on anyway, had the information.
Click to expand...

I stopped reading after Byrne should have been able to guess what evidence they had.

It may appear that way to you but you have no idea whether that's true or not, the important information as far as the club were concerned was whether he was guilty or not.
 
GinoBartali said:
Can we just acknowledge the elephant in the room and admit that SAFC possibly saw him as a diminishing commodity and made a call to make the most of him whilst he's available.

Does football suddenly have a moral conscience?
Click to expand...

That would be vaguely manageable if they just came out and said it.
 
GinoBartali said:
Can we just acknowledge the elephant in the room and admit that SAFC possibly saw him as a diminishing commodity and made a call to make the most of him whilst he's available.

Does football suddenly have a moral conscience?
Click to expand...

i can go along with this.
 
haway said:
His post clearly says suspended on full pay, not sacked, and as the post goes on to say, given it appears the club had the police station deps. and whatsapp messages later on anyway, had the information.
Click to expand...
Did they? The police said they didn't give them the evidence and of course why would they. Its not an employers place to judge guilt of a crime, that's what we have court cases for. If he and his lawyer had said they were going to plead guilty, then the club would have fired him there and then. But because they said they were going to plead not-guilty, it leaves the club in a crappy position. We can discuss suspension or no-suspension until the cows come home, it was a decision that was made by the Club with input from the PFA and they decided to let him play until the trial. Personally I'm fine with that, innocent until proven guilty.

What I am not ok with is the potential sentence. As others have stated, you can murder someone and get 7 years, yet you kiss and fumble about with a girl, who is months away from being 16, and you get possibly up to 10 years? That is frankly ridiculous.

Johnson is still a dick of the highest order like.
 
haway said:
That would be vaguely manageable if they just came out and said it.
Click to expand...

The PR disaster that would be means that they never would do so.

It's just a theory but I can't think of a more logical explanation.
 
Rober33 said:
I stopped reading after Byrne should have been able to guess what evidence they had.

It may appear that way to you but you have no idea whether that's true or not, the important information as far as the club were concerned was whether he was guilty or not.
Click to expand...

But why do I not have an idea? A leading QC has said it, in a court, under oath, and the club haven't refuted it? By all my measures that's usually a good sign it's true. And I agree completely but the issue is it looks like they may have had evidence he was guilty but chosen to 'believe' the fabrication he made up that he was going to plead not guilty anyway... despite having the evidence of the whatsapps and the police station interview.
 
---Nemo--- said:
I'm reasonably confident he would have found a more subtle way to raise/address the issue.
Click to expand...

Its completely inadmissible man. Did you see it raised in this trial he had been suspended for 2 weeks without pay? No, it would be a complete mistrial because that can't bias the juries view. Whether we suspended him with pay, kept him at the club but not play him, or kept playing him... it would have no bearing on the trial and no judge would allow it to. Imagine a rape trial where someone was suspended with pay during proceedings and the defence barrister raised it. The judge would stop the case and say what the fuck does this have to do with your clients defence? For a start whether he was sacked, suspended or flogged has no bearing on the offences as they were committed BEFORE anything the club did. It's just irrelevant and a judge wouldn't allow it.

ANonnyMoose said:
Did they? The police said they didn't give them the evidence and of course why would they. Its not an employers place to judge guilt of a crime, that's what we have court cases for. If he and his lawyer had said they were going to plead guilty, then the club would have fired him there and then. But because they said they were going to plead not-guilty, it leaves the club in a crappy position. We can discuss suspension or no-suspension until the cows come home, it was a decision that was made by the Club with input from the PFA and they decided to let him play until the trial. Personally I'm fine with that, innocent until proven guilty.

What I am not ok with is the potential sentence. As others have stated, you can murder someone and get 7 years, yet you kiss and fumble about with a girl, who is months away from being 16, and you get possibly up to 10 years? That is frankly ridiculous.

Johnson is still a dick of the highest order like.
Click to expand...

Johnson's QC said he was present in a meeting with AJ and Byrne where he admitted kissing her. He also said he gave the club the whatsapps and this wasn't disputed by the prosecution, nor by the club in their statement.

The max. sentence is 10 year but that also includes much more serious things than what AJ did (much like murder goes up to life without parole). AJ will get 2 - 3 years, and most of it isn't for the kissing, but the exploitation of a position of trust and grooming
 
Last edited:
haway said:
Its completely inadmissible man. Did you see it raised in this trial he had been suspended for 2 weeks without pay? No, it would be a complete mistrial because that can't bias the juries view. Whether we suspended him with pay, kept him at the club but not play him, or kept playing him... it would have no bearing on the trial and no judge would allow it to. Imagine a rape trial where someone was suspended with pay during proceedings and the defence barrister raised it. The judge would stop the case and say what the fuck does this have to do with your clients defence? For a start whether he was sacked, suspended or flogged has no bearing on the offences as they were committed BEFORE anything the club did. It's just irrelevant and a judge wouldn't allow it.



Johnson's QC said he was present in a meeting with AJ and Byrne where he admitted kissing her. He also said he gave the club the whatsapps and this wasn't disputed by the prosecution, nor by the club in their statement.

The max. sentence is 10 year but that also includes much more serious things than what AJ did (much like murder goes up to life without parole). AJ will get 2 - 3 years, and most of it isn't for the kissing, but the exploitation of a position of trust and grooming
Click to expand...

Who is supposed to have given the club Whatsapp messages?

Johnson or the QC?

Does that mean they saw all 800 odd of them or only some?

It makes a big difference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top