Adam Johnson Trial Verdict

[Reiver]

Hold on, so you absolutely slated the experience I said I had but you are claiming you know it all because you worked for a law firm part time taking notes, bloody hell

There's nothing more amusing, on here, than someone thinking,

"Hey, this is something I can claim inside knowledge of which will put me above everyone else."

Using legal terms and quoting other cases is the modus operandi of every amateur barrister on the board.

Note the use of the phrase 'modus operandi'

 

[ZOMBIES]

IIRC, the PFA managed to get a club fucked over for sending an asshat of a player to train with the reserves - they claimed that it would affect his future earnings potential not being able to train with the first team.

The situations aren't the same but I hate it that the club and the PFA were there for Johnson and they weren't there for Alvarez

 

[Must be bored]

But the confidentiality between an employer and employee isn't the same as the confidentiality between a lawyer and his client. As far as I'm aware there is no obligation for an employer to observe confidentiality between them and their client... but there always is between a QC and their client.

AJ might have waived his right to confidentiality, I don't know, I've never seen that suggested. But I wouldn't have thought it would apply to the barrister having a free for all to say what he wants, if he did I think it would relate to legal privilege meaning he waived privilege to confidentiality with his QC for the purposes of the trial. But as I say, I haven't seen that anywhere, so that's complete speculation.

Although the employee\employer rules aren't as strict, could his right to legal priviledge not also restrict what the club are able to say that meeting, since they could inadvertantly disclose conversations that should be protected?

Not my area of expertise at all mind so I've no idea

 

[Rober33]

They always say that at the outset.

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.

 

[theinediblebulk]

There's nothing more amusing, on here, than someone thinking,

"Hey, this is something I can claim inside knowledge of which will put me above everyone else."

Using legal terms and quoting other cases is the modus operandi of every amateur barrister on the board.

Note the use of the phrase 'modus operandi'

Start calling you Columbo.

 

[kick in the quinn]

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.

I agree with you.

 

[haway]

Mate, I'm not arsed about examples from elsewhere. They're not relevant to the discussion about what the club did or didn't know. I was asking about the confidentiality stuff as I have no experience of any of it, and you do, and I always find it helpful to get information from someone who is more informed than myself over the issue.

So if there's a confidentiality clause between Johnson and his QC and it needed Johnson to give his QC permission to give information over what was discussed to the club, and that same confidentiality clause would prevent his QC from answering press questions, would the club not need permission to reveal what information they received due to the confidentiality issue to answer the same press questions?

The confidentiality between a lawyer and their client in respect of court proceedings is very specific. I think you can waive that confidentiality in respect to a court case and it doesn't mean you're waiving overall confidentiality, it just means for the purposes of your trial what you discuss with your lawyer is no longer privileged.

You must be logged on to see external links

I think that explains legal privilege better than anyone on here can.

 

[Botchie]

Some bloke has written open letter to Byrne, and the Echo are publishing it tomorrow. They've just tweeted it, I'm sure someone clever can post it. This bloke is saying his support for the club is in "doubt". This is exactly what we don't need.

 

[Reiver]

The confidentiality between a lawyer and their client in respect of court proceedings is very specific. I think you can waive that confidentiality in respect to a court case and it doesn't mean you're waiving overall confidentiality, it just means for the purposes of your trial what you discuss with your lawyer is no longer privileged.

You must be logged on to see external links

I think that explains legal privilege better than anyone on here can.

 

[haway]

Although the employee\employer rules aren't as strict, could his right to legal priviledge not also restrict what the club are able to say that meeting, since they could inadvertantly disclose conversations that should be protected?

Not my area of expertise at all mind so I've no idea

Legal privilege is just between you and your client I think.

It's why your employer could be called to court to testify against an employee but a person's legal advisor could never be called to court to testify against a punter (unless the punter waived legal privilege), or introduced information to the court from their meetings with their lawyer...

 

[shepherd88]

The situations aren't the same but I hate it that the club and the PFA were there for Johnson and they weren't there for Alvarez

A very bizarre comparison but relevant all the same. As someone said earlier Gordon Taylor loves being in the press, so would be interesting to hear his point of view.

 

[AlpineExile]

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.

WTF?

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.

No, what is worrying is people like you who think that a juror wanting to fuck off for whatever reason is a good enough reason to not bother to do their job.

 

[Botchie]

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.

They had a job interview, it was reported the other day.

 

[kick in the quinn]

There's nothing more amusing, on here, than someone thinking,

"Hey, this is something I can claim inside knowledge of which will put me above everyone else."

Using legal terms and quoting other cases is the modus operandi of every amateur barrister on the board.

Note the use of the phrase 'modus operandi'

But that is the basis of case law. Not sure it is relevant to the criminal code though.

 

[AlpineExile]

Some bloke has written open letter to Byrne, and the Echo are publishing it tomorrow. They've just tweeted it, I'm sure someone clever can post it. This bloke is saying his support for the club is in "doubt". This is exactly what we don't need.

Well we certainly don't need blokes like him in our ranks.

 

[Rober33]

Some bloke has written open letter to Byrne, and the Echo are publishing it tomorrow. They've just tweeted it, I'm sure someone clever can post it. This bloke is saying his support for the club is in "doubt". This is exactly what we don't need.

She'll just refer him to the club's complaints department:

Logon or register to see this image

WTF?No, what is worrying is people like you who think that a juror wanting to fuck off for whatever reason is a good enough reason to not bother to do their job.

What?

 

[walesie]

Did the girl have learning difficulties that prevented her from making a choice? She encouraged the situation from the start, it was with her consent. When she turns/turned 16, does she suddenly become competent enough to make an informed decision about sex? Legally yes, in reality, no. In Denmark and premably many other countries, she'd be legal. Are they culturally backwards there regarding sex? 16 is a fairly arbitrary choice of age of consent, it's hardly a science given people mature at very different rates. For what it's worth, I think the age of consent should be raised to 18, for various reasons. All this 'nonce' and child molester talk is a massive overreaction and is insulting to those who have genuinely been molested IMO.

I was molested several times as a kid, I've openly mentioned it on here before, on a couple of occasions it involved violence. I felt threatened and cornered, and I couldn't tell anyone as I didn't think anyone would believe me. I did absolutely nothing to encourage the events. NOTHING.
If you think that is in any way the same thing as the Johnson case, you're f***ing nuts. You and all the idiots who agree with you. The girl has to shoulder some responsibility in this, and where the hell were her parents?

Oh fuck off man. Shes a child & has been put through a very traumatic experience at the hands of a convicted child abuser.

I'm sorry for what you were subjected too but you are way off putting any blame on the victim in this case.

 

[theinediblebulk]

The confidentiality between a lawyer and their client in respect of court proceedings is very specific. I think you can waive that confidentiality in respect to a court case and it doesn't mean you're waiving overall confidentiality, it just means for the purposes of your trial what you discuss with your lawyer is no longer privileged.

You must be logged on to see external links

I think that explains legal privilege better than anyone on here can.

So basically, in respect to the question "if there's a confidentiality clause between Johnson and his QC and it needed Johnson to give his QC permission to give information over what was discussed to the club, and that same confidentiality clause would prevent his QC from answering press questions, would the club not need permission to reveal what information they received due to the confidentiality issue to answer the same press questions?" the simple answer is you don't know. Glad that's cleared up.

And am I going to find the answer to that question in that link you provided, as if not I'm not going to try and read it.

 

[Botchie]

Well we certainly don't need blokes like him in our ranks.

We need to be supporting the team and the manager and standing together to take the shit we will get on the chin.

 

[haway]

Hold on, so you absolutely slated the experience I said I had but you are claiming you know it all because you worked for a law firm part time taking notes, bloody hell

You're the only person in this thread who has repeatedly blabbered on about your extensive experience of courts. I only brought this up after you asked me.

As I said to you earlier, I'm sure you know the law you have been involved in much better than me, but all I said was you shouldn't speak so f***ing authoritatively when you have never been involved in criminal law or a single criminal court case in your life. You would never hear me say 'my experience in courts mean' and go on to talk about civil courts. I was very clear my knowledge was limited in my earlier post but what the one thing I claimed some authority on from it is how barristers behave and interact with clients in meetings in criminal law. The only reason I claimed some authority on that is because I have spent months sat listening to it. You haven't seen me once in this thread using that experience to justify anything more than that experience of court process.