The court heard that, far from taking the club by surprise, Sunderland knew within two months of his arrest that he had admitted kissing and sending explicit messages to the underage schoolgirl. The club had copies of the 834 WhatsApp messages the pair had sent each other, and transcripts of both their police interviews.
“I told them everything,” Johnson said in the witness box at Bradford crown court.
The court was told that Sunderland’s chief executive, Margaret Byrne, a former solicitor, gave the footballer’s counsel, Orlando Pownall QC, the transcripts and WhatsApp messages at a meeting in Newcastle on 4 May 2015. Johnson, who was at the meeting with his father, Dave, said there was never a suggestion that he would be sacked by the club.
He continued playing until the weekend before his trial, scoring in a 2-2 draw away at Liverpool. Four days later, after signing the sex offender register following his guilty pleas, Johnson received a a two-line email from the club tearing up his contract. On his reported wages, Johnson had earned £2.7m since his suspension was lifted, not including his £10,000-a-season Adidas boot sponsorship, which was also terminated following his guilty pleas.
Simply cannot be allowed to happen again, someone at SFC needs to take responsibility and resign.
The timings troubled me greatly as, being familiar with the legal process, there is no way it would have come as a complete surprise to the Club. By then they would have access to a huge amount of evidence. This is confirmed by Pownall QC.
Looks to me like they took the decision to protect their sporting interests at the expense of their moral responsibilites. Don't see any other possible conclusion. When I raised this earlier in the thread, someone used the example of one of our own players and the right of innocence until proven guilty. My view is that a football club has to err on the side of caution and suspend the player accused if their is any doubt as to the player's complete innocence. A draconian move perhaps, but in the context, one I think is completely justified.
That was me - it was before I knew he had basically given all the details of what happened and assumed he'd denied everything to them until the day of the trial when he pleaded guilty.
Given what's come out, I couldn't agree more that they should have sacked him on the spot when he told them and they saw the messages.
This. Also how does it work sometimes that there will be a murder with a few people involved and they get released pending further inquries and others are remanded in custody. Not all people remanded go down do they?
This. Also how does it work sometimes that there will be a murder with a few people involved and they get released pending further inquries and others are remanded in custody. Not all people remanded go down do they?
Different scenarios. Remanded in custody means they've been charged with something. Police can't keep someone locked up indefinitely, there's time limits. If they or CPS haven't got enough to charge they have to bail them.
If for example Adam Johnson was just a fringe squad player with no real impact on the 1st team, then they probably would have sacked him on the spot after having such information.
The court heard that, far from taking the club by surprise, Sunderland knew within two months of his arrest that he had admitted kissing and sending explicit messages to the underage schoolgirl. The club had copies of the 834 WhatsApp messages the pair had sent each other, and transcripts of both their police interviews.
“I told them everything,” Johnson said in the witness box at Bradford crown court.
The court was told that Sunderland’s chief executive, Margaret Byrne, a former solicitor, gave the footballer’s counsel, Orlando Pownall QC, the transcripts and WhatsApp messages at a meeting in Newcastle on 4 May 2015. Johnson, who was at the meeting with his father, Dave, said there was never a suggestion that he would be sacked by the club.
He continued playing until the weekend before his trial, scoring in a 2-2 draw away at Liverpool. Four days later, after signing the sex offender register following his guilty pleas, Johnson received a a two-line email from the club tearing up his contract. On his reported wages, Johnson had earned £2.7m since his suspension was lifted, not including his £10,000-a-season Adidas boot sponsorship, which was also terminated following his guilty pleas.
Simply cannot be allowed to happen again, someone at SFC needs to take responsibility and resign.
The timings troubled me greatly as, being familiar with the legal process, there is no way it would have come as a complete surprise to the Club. By then they would have access to a huge amount of evidence. This is confirmed by Pownall QC.
Looks to me like they took the decision to protect their sporting interests at the expense of their moral responsibilites. Don't see any other possible conclusion. When I raised this earlier in the thread, someone used the example of one of our own players and the right of innocence until proven guilty. My view is that a football club has to err on the side of caution and suspend the player accused if their is any doubt as to the player's complete innocence. A draconian move perhaps, but in the context, one I think is completely justified.
That was me - it was before I knew he had basically given all the details of what happened and assumed he'd denied everything to them until the day of the trial when he pleaded guilty.
Given what's come out, I couldn't agree more that they should have sacked him on the spot when he told them and they saw the messages.
Hey Neil, just to clarify that wasnt a dig at all mate. Tbh, I stushed my mouth in the thread because as u quite rightly say, we didn't know all the details.
I guess the only reason I was so certain that they knew is because I am familiar with the process and knew that someone high up at SFC would have known from their meetings with his legal team. They would have known it wasn't spurious.
Good to see the mackem fans up in arms and calling for the head of Margaret Byrne.
What Johnson has done is exceptionally stupid by letting himself take advantage of this girl. At the end of the day nobody can stop him from feeling attracted to her but he should never have pursude it. He should have just signed her shirt if she wanted something signed and that is it. If she gave him a peck on the cheek following the the signed shirt fine. But anything more not. But that said he asked her for a thank you kiss. But I think as much as Johnson has been stupid she too has been a bit niave and misguided. Why did she let herself get into this situation n the first place? She should have said no to anything amerous.
The court heard that, far from taking the club by surprise, Sunderland knew within two months of his arrest that he had admitted kissing and sending explicit messages to the underage schoolgirl. The club had copies of the 834 WhatsApp messages the pair had sent each other, and transcripts of both their police interviews.
“I told them everything,” Johnson said in the witness box at Bradford crown court.
The court was told that Sunderland’s chief executive, Margaret Byrne, a former solicitor, gave the footballer’s counsel, Orlando Pownall QC, the transcripts and WhatsApp messages at a meeting in Newcastle on 4 May 2015. Johnson, who was at the meeting with his father, Dave, said there was never a suggestion that he would be sacked by the club.
He continued playing until the weekend before his trial, scoring in a 2-2 draw away at Liverpool. Four days later, after signing the sex offender register following his guilty pleas, Johnson received a a two-line email from the club tearing up his contract. On his reported wages, Johnson had earned £2.7m since his suspension was lifted, not including his £10,000-a-season Adidas boot sponsorship, which was also terminated following his guilty pleas.
Simply cannot be allowed to happen again, someone at SFC needs to take responsibility and resign.
The timings troubled me greatly as, being familiar with the legal process, there is no way it would have come as a complete surprise to the Club. By then they would have access to a huge amount of evidence. This is confirmed by Pownall QC.
Looks to me like they took the decision to protect their sporting interests at the expense of their moral responsibilites. Don't see any other possible conclusion. When I raised this earlier in the thread, someone used the example of one of our own players and the right of innocence until proven guilty. My view is that a football club has to err on the side of caution and suspend the player accused if their is any doubt as to the player's complete innocence. A draconian move perhaps, but in the context, one I think is completely justified.
That was me - it was before I knew he had basically given all the details of what happened and assumed he'd denied everything to them until the day of the trial when he pleaded guilty.
Given what's come out, I couldn't agree more that they should have sacked him on the spot when he told them and they saw the messages.
Hey Neil, just to clarify that wasnt a dig at all mate. Tbh, I stushed my mouth in the thread because as u quite rightly say, we didn't know all the details.
I guess the only reason I was so certain that they knew is because I am familiar with the process and knew that someone high up at SFC would have known from their meetings with his legal team. They would have known it wasn't spurious.
Good to see the mackem fans up in arms and calling for the head of Margaret Byrne.
If for example Adam Johnson was just a fringe squad player with no real impact on the 1st team, then they probably would have sacked him on the spot after having such information.
Its a disgrace.
Id be ashamed to be a sunderland fan at present
Sunderland did the right thing by not sacking him till he was found guilty or pleaded guilty. Innocent till proven guilty.
And for a bit of an answer to the delay question re sentencing,2 weeks is not a long time IMO. There needs to be an assessment on where the offence sits in the scale of its classification and also to allow any plea of mitigation on the part of the defendant.
The real question is should he have been bailed? As the criteria for this mainly address likelihood of absconding and likelihood of reoffending, Johnson was always going to make bail IMO.
I don't think the delay is unwarranted, it's a fundamental tenant of criminal law that it has to be as subjective as possible as how the sentence fits the crime.
Just be thankful we don't share the time periods in for instance Italy where you can appeal ad infinitum and put off the jail time if you can afford the legal costs.
If for example Adam Johnson was just a fringe squad player with no real impact on the 1st team, then they probably would have sacked him on the spot after having such information.
Its a disgrace.
Id be ashamed to be a sunderland fan at present
Sunderland did the right thing by not sacking him till he was found guilty or pleaded guilty. Innocent till proven guilty.
He told Sunderland he had kissed her. That makes him guilty. She was a child in the eyes of the law.
What Johnson has done is exceptionally stupid by letting himself take advantage of this girl. At the end of the day nobody can stop him from feeling attracted to her but he should never have pursude it. He should have just signed her shirt if she wanted something signed and that is it. If she gave him a peck on the cheek following the the signed shirt fine. But anything more not. But that said he asked her for a thank you kiss. But I think as much as Johnson has been stupid she too has been a bit niave and misguided. Why did she let herself get into this situation n the first place? She should have said no to anything amerous.
A young girl being naive and stupid with an older idol, who'd have thought it? Situation is 100% his making and his fault and any attempt to lay any blame on her is frankly pathetic.
If for example Adam Johnson was just a fringe squad player with no real impact on the 1st team, then they probably would have sacked him on the spot after having such information.
Its a disgrace.
Id be ashamed to be a sunderland fan at present
Sunderland did the right thing by not sacking him till he was found guilty or pleaded guilty. Innocent till proven guilty.
He told Sunderland he had kissed her. That makes him guilty. She was a child in the eyes of the law.
If for example Adam Johnson was just a fringe squad player with no real impact on the 1st team, then they probably would have sacked him on the spot after having such information.
Its a disgrace.
Id be ashamed to be a sunderland fan at present
Sunderland did the right thing by not sacking him till he was found guilty or pleaded guilty. Innocent till proven guilty.
If for example Adam Johnson was just a fringe squad player with no real impact on the 1st team, then they probably would have sacked him on the spot after having such information.
Its a disgrace.
Id be ashamed to be a sunderland fan at present
Too true David
He scored a decisive goal two days before pleading guilty. It's a ludicrous situation that can't be allowed to repeat. It's not the goal per se that's the crucial point but it caps off an ugly, ugly state of affairs.
Seems most of the fans are mortified at Byrne's role in the debacle and good on em for it.
If for example Adam Johnson was just a fringe squad player with no real impact on the 1st team, then they probably would have sacked him on the spot after having such information.
Its a disgrace.
Id be ashamed to be a sunderland fan at present
Sunderland did the right thing by not sacking him till he was found guilty or pleaded guilty. Innocent till proven guilty.
He told Sunderland he had kissed her. That makes him guilty. She was a child in the eyes of the law.
Fair enough. But when did he tell them that?
The best date to take is the one his QC states, the meeting of 4 May 2015. I have no reason to doubt the QC being anything other than accurate in this statement, he would be very foolish to lie about this and would jeopardise his whole career if this isn't true.
Ched Evans rape conviction to be reviewed by Appeal Court later this month Footballer's case referred to Court of Appeal in London by Criminal Cases Review Commission, which investigates possible miscarriages of justice
Footballer Ched Evans's conviction for raping a 19-year-old woman is to be reviewed by leading judges. His case has been referred to the Court of Appeal in London by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which investigates possible miscarriages of justice.
The CCRC announced last October that new evidence had emerged in the case. "We have identified new material which was not considered by the jury at trial and which, in our view, might have assisted the defence"
Criminal Cases Review Commission The former Sheffield United striker and Welsh international was convicted in April 2012. He was found guilty at Caernarfon Crown Court of raping the woman at a hotel in Rhyl. Evans was released from prison in 2014 after serving half of his five-year sentence. Court of Appeal judges will now consider the safety of his conviction at a hearing on Tuesday, March 22. The referral to appeal judges followed a 10-month investigation by the commission.
When the decision was announced, CCRC chair Richard Foster said: "The decision of the commission is not a judgment on guilt or innocence in relation to Ched Evans, nor is it a judgment about the honesty or integrity of the victim or any other person involved in the case. "Our role is to consider applications to see if, in our judgment, there is any basis on which to ask the court to hear a fresh appeal - that is our statutory responsibility. "In this case we have identified new material which was not considered by the jury at trial and which, in our view, might have assisted the defence. "In those circumstances, it is right and proper for the matter to be before the court so that they can decide whether or not the new information should affect the verdict in this case."
Evans previously lost his case at the Court of Appeal in 2012.
Ched Evans apologises to rape victim for first time.
Evans scored 48 goals in 113 games for the Blades before his imprisonment, including 35 in 42 games during the 2011/12 campaign which was cut short for him due to his trial and conviction. He has been capped 13 times for Wales.
Thanks CR, can't find the Evans thread that is open........the one I did find was closed by admin, and someone asked on here what the latest on Evans appeal was.
If for example Adam Johnson was just a fringe squad player with no real impact on the 1st team, then they probably would have sacked him on the spot after having such information.
Its a disgrace.
Id be ashamed to be a sunderland fan at present
Sunderland did the right thing by not sacking him till he was found guilty or pleaded guilty. Innocent till proven guilty.
He told Sunderland he had kissed her. That makes him guilty. She was a child in the eyes of the law.
Fair enough. But when did he tell them that?
The best date to take is the one his QC states, the meeting of 4 May 2015. I have no reason to doubt the QC being anything other than accurate in this statement, he would be very foolish to lie about this and would jeopardise his whole career if this isn't true.
And they had access to all of the messages when he admitted all of this to them. Sunderland are not looking good in all of this. By all means he shouldn't have been sacked until the verdicts/when he pleaded guilty but at a minimum he should have been suspended.
Thanks CR, can't find the Evans thread that is open........the one I did find was closed by admin, and someone asked on here what the latest on Evans appeal was.
Sorry.
Ah I am only joshing pal. Still in awe at your activities last weekend P, superb effort.
What is worrying me at the moment is the role Sunderland FC played in this. We know Connor Wickham was receiving messages from the girl, which he very sensibly passed on to the authorities. Sunderland have announced that they wont sue Johnson for the remainder of his contract. Could it be they knew of his guilt, but continued to play him anyway in pursuit of premier league riches?
What Johnson has done is exceptionally stupid by letting himself take advantage of this girl. At the end of the day nobody can stop him from feeling attracted to her but he should never have pursude it. He should have just signed her shirt if she wanted something signed and that is it. If she gave him a peck on the cheek following the the signed shirt fine. But anything more not. But that said he asked her for a thank you kiss. But I think as much as Johnson has been stupid she too has been a bit niave and misguided. Why did she let herself get into this situation n the first place? She should have said no to anything amerous.
Maybe she was naive and misguided because she was a starstruck 15 year old child
What Johnson has done is exceptionally stupid by letting himself take advantage of this girl. At the end of the day nobody can stop him from feeling attracted to her but he should never have pursude it. He should have just signed her shirt if she wanted something signed and that is it. If she gave him a peck on the cheek following the the signed shirt fine. But anything more not. But that said he asked her for a thank you kiss. But I think as much as Johnson has been stupid she too has been a bit niave and misguided. Why did she let herself get into this situation n the first place? She should have said no to anything amerous.
A young girl being naive and stupid with an older idol, who'd have thought it? Situation is 100% his making and his fault and any attempt to lay any blame on her is frankly pathetic.
My comments have been slightly misinterpreted. I am not blaming the girl. She is 15 and both girls and boys can still be immerture at that age. Not their fault. Youngsters always develop at their own speed. Johnson has been an idiot taking taking head on advantage of her age. She was clearly star struck and didn't know what to do.
I am sorry if my comments appear to offend but they are certainly not meant to.
What Johnson has done is exceptionally stupid by letting himself take advantage of this girl. At the end of the day nobody can stop him from feeling attracted to her but he should never have pursude it. He should have just signed her shirt if she wanted something signed and that is it. If she gave him a peck on the cheek following the the signed shirt fine. But anything more not. But that said he asked her for a thank you kiss. But I think as much as Johnson has been stupid she too has been a bit niave and misguided. Why did she let herself get into this situation n the first place? She should have said no to anything amerous.
A young girl being naive and stupid with an older idol, who'd have thought it? Situation is 100% his making and his fault and any attempt to lay any blame on her is frankly pathetic.
Johnson has been an idiot taking head
Sorry, not a laughing matter & I'm not laughing, but couldn't resist. You could have worded that better.
What Johnson has done is exceptionally stupid by letting himself take advantage of this girl. At the end of the day nobody can stop him from feeling attracted to her but he should never have pursude it. He should have just signed her shirt if she wanted something signed and that is it. If she gave him a peck on the cheek following the the signed shirt fine. But anything more not. But that said he asked her for a thank you kiss. But I think as much as Johnson has been stupid she too has been a bit niave and misguided. Why did she let herself get into this situation n the first place? She should have said no to anything amerous.
A young girl being naive and stupid with an older idol, who'd have thought it? Situation is 100% his making and his fault and any attempt to lay any blame on her is frankly pathetic.
My comments have been slightly misinterpreted. I am not blaming the girl. She is 15 and both girls and boys can still be immerture at that age. Not their fault. Youngsters always develop at their own speed. Johnson has been an idiot taking taking head on advantage of her age. She was clearly star struck and didn't know what to do.
I am sorry if my comments appear to offend but they are certainly not meant to.
"But I think as much as Johnson has been stupid she too has been a bit niave and misguided. Why did she let herself get into this situation n the first place?"
If that's not victim blaming I don't know what is. Stuff like this - and it all adds up - has the potential to perpetuate a culture in which "she was asking for it" or what have you. Which is not on.
Adam Johnson pleading guilty to child sex offences was a "massive shock" for Sunderland manager Sam Allardyce.
The footballer, 28, has been told he faces jail after being found guilty of sexual activity with a girl aged 15.
He was playing for Sunderland until the start of his trial but was sacked after changing his pleas and admitting to two charges on the first day.
"It was a massive shock," said Allardyce. "Justice has been done, he's let everybody down."
He added: "This is a big shock to everyone and also a reminder to everybody to make sure that you don't put yourself in that position or situation."
Johnson had denied all four charges he faced up until the start of his trial.
After admitting to two charges - one of grooming and one of sexual activity - he was found guilty of sexual touching, but not guilty on a charge relating to another sexual act.
"I was sat at home when it came on the news and I just was gobsmacked because as far as we were concerned, it was his intention to plead not guilty on all charges," Allardyce added.
"That is why we continued to let him train and play for us."
However, the trial at Bradford Crown Court heard evidence that the club's chief executive, Margaret Byrne, met Johnson and his barrister in May 2015 when he accepted he had kissed the girl and exchanged messages with her.
The jury was told that, before the case came to court, club bosses had seen all the 834 WhatsApp messages the pair sent to each other, along with transcripts of police interviews.
Sunderland yesterday denied they "knew all along that Mr Johnson was intending to change his plea just before trial to enable him to continue to play football for the club".
Comments
Given what's come out, I couldn't agree more that they should have sacked him on the spot when he told them and they saw the messages.
Also how does it work sometimes that there will be a murder with a few people involved and they get released pending further inquries and others are remanded in custody.
Not all people remanded go down do they?
Its a disgrace.
Id be ashamed to be a sunderland fan at present
I guess the only reason I was so certain that they knew is because I am familiar with the process and knew that someone high up at SFC would have known from their meetings with his legal team. They would have known it wasn't spurious.
Good to see the mackem fans up in arms and calling for the head of Margaret Byrne.
The real question is should he have been bailed? As the criteria for this mainly address likelihood of absconding and likelihood of reoffending, Johnson was always going to make bail IMO.
I don't think the delay is unwarranted, it's a fundamental tenant of criminal law that it has to be as subjective as possible as how the sentence fits the crime.
Just be thankful we don't share the time periods in for instance Italy where you can appeal ad infinitum and put off the jail time if you can afford the legal costs.
Situation is 100% his making and his fault and any attempt to lay any blame on her is frankly pathetic.
If for example Adam Johnson was just a fringe squad player with no real impact on the 1st team, then they probably would have sacked him on the spot after having such information.
Its a disgrace.
Id be ashamed to be a sunderland fan at present
Too true David
He scored a decisive goal two days before pleading guilty. It's a ludicrous situation that can't be allowed to repeat. It's not the goal per se that's the crucial point but it caps off an ugly, ugly state of affairs.
Seems most of the fans are mortified at Byrne's role in the debacle and good on em for it.
In answer to someones question last week.....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12180907/Ched-Evans-rape-conviction-to-be-reviewed-by-Appeal-Court-later-this-month.html
Footballer's case referred to Court of Appeal in London by Criminal Cases Review Commission, which investigates possible miscarriages of justice
Footballer Ched Evans's conviction for raping a 19-year-old woman is to be reviewed by leading judges.
His case has been referred to the Court of Appeal in London by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which investigates possible miscarriages of justice.
The CCRC announced last October that new evidence had emerged in the case.
"We have identified new material which was not considered by the jury at trial and which, in our view, might have assisted the defence"
Criminal Cases Review Commission
The former Sheffield United striker and Welsh international was convicted in April 2012. He was found guilty at Caernarfon Crown Court of raping the woman at a hotel in Rhyl.
Evans was released from prison in 2014 after serving half of his five-year sentence.
Court of Appeal judges will now consider the safety of his conviction at a hearing on Tuesday, March 22.
The referral to appeal judges followed a 10-month investigation by the commission.
When the decision was announced, CCRC chair Richard Foster said: "The decision of the commission is not a judgment on guilt or innocence in relation to Ched Evans, nor is it a judgment about the honesty or integrity of the victim or any other person involved in the case.
"Our role is to consider applications to see if, in our judgment, there is any basis on which to ask the court to hear a fresh appeal - that is our statutory responsibility.
"In this case we have identified new material which was not considered by the jury at trial and which, in our view, might have assisted the defence.
"In those circumstances, it is right and proper for the matter to be before the court so that they can decide whether or not the new information should affect the verdict in this case."
Evans previously lost his case at the Court of Appeal in 2012.
Ched Evans apologises to rape victim for first time.
Evans scored 48 goals in 113 games for the Blades before his imprisonment, including 35 in 42 games during the 2011/12 campaign which was cut short for him due to his trial and conviction.
He has been capped 13 times for Wales.
Sorry.
Good call........
@SheedyCAFC @moutuakilla .
I am sorry if my comments appear to offend but they are certainly not meant to.
If that's not victim blaming I don't know what is. Stuff like this - and it all adds up - has the potential to perpetuate a culture in which "she was asking for it" or what have you. Which is not on.
The footballer, 28, has been told he faces jail after being found guilty of sexual activity with a girl aged 15.
He was playing for Sunderland until the start of his trial but was sacked after changing his pleas and admitting to two charges on the first day.
"It was a massive shock," said Allardyce. "Justice has been done, he's let everybody down."
He added: "This is a big shock to everyone and also a reminder to everybody to make sure that you don't put yourself in that position or situation."
Johnson had denied all four charges he faced up until the start of his trial.
After admitting to two charges - one of grooming and one of sexual activity - he was found guilty of sexual touching, but not guilty on a charge relating to another sexual act.
"I was sat at home when it came on the news and I just was gobsmacked because as far as we were concerned, it was his intention to plead not guilty on all charges," Allardyce added.
"That is why we continued to let him train and play for us."
However, the trial at Bradford Crown Court heard evidence that the club's chief executive, Margaret Byrne, met Johnson and his barrister in May 2015 when he accepted he had kissed the girl and exchanged messages with her.
The jury was told that, before the case came to court, club bosses had seen all the 834 WhatsApp messages the pair sent to each other, along with transcripts of police interviews.
Sunderland yesterday denied they "knew all along that Mr Johnson was intending to change his plea just before trial to enable him to continue to play football for the club".
And the club should be done for keeping him on so he could line his pockets before the case.