Home Adam Johnson Convicted of Sexual Activity with a Child

News

Adam Johnson Convicted of Sexual Activity with a Child

Gerry Scott, a Criminal Solicitor at Ben Hoare Bell LLP, discusses some of the questions being asked about the recent court case and conviction of Adam Johnson.


What did the Jury find?

We will never have access to the contents of the jury deliberations. We do know however that the former SAFC player was convicted of one count of Sexual Activity with a Child by a majority verdict of 10 – 2. He was acquitted of a further charge that related to separate conduct as part of the same incident. The charge of which he was convicted certainly appears to be more serious than the two matters to which he pleaded guilty at the outset of the trial and which all relate to the same victim.

What about an appeal?

Johnson’s barrister has already indicated that he will appeal the conviction. It remains to be seen what the grounds for this appeal are and I won’t speculate. However any appeal will not prevent the Crown Court Judge sentencing him when he returns to court in a few weeks. The first stage for an appeal is that a Judge in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division will consider the merits of appeal on the basis of paper submissions. If he thinks the appeal is arguable then the matter will progress to a full hearing in which three Judges will hear arguments from the Prosecution and defence and decide whether or not the conviction is unsafe. If the single Judge finds that Johnson has no arguable grounds to appeal then he has the option to renew his appeal in front of the full court but there can be serious consequences for the former footballer if he were to lose his application to renew the appeal. This includes the possibility of the court ruling that any time already served in prison should not count towards his sentence.

What sentence is he likely to receive?

I can of course only speculate but the Judge in the case has already indicated that Johnson will almost certainly receive a sentence of immediate custody. In determining the length of the sentence he will have regard to the Sexual Offences Definitive Guideline issued by the Sentencing Council. Initially the Judge will have to determine the level of Culpability and Harm. He has already indicated that this is likely to fall into the highest category with a starting point of 5 years and a range of 4 years to 10 years. Factors he takes into consideration are likely to include that there was an associated offence of grooming and that Johnson was clearly in a position of power and influence in respect of the victim.

The next stage is for the Judge to have regard to the aggravating and mitigating factors that he identifies in this case. Although pleading guilty would normally reduce the sentence you could expect to be imposed this is not likely to have any effect in Johnson’s case as he entered his guilty pleas so late and took the more serious matters to trial after which he was convicted.

Following this the Judge will need to determine whether Johnson is dangerous. In the event that he is found to be dangerous then the Judge will have to consider whether to pass an extended sentence. This will only apply where he receives a sentence of 4 years or more and where the Judge finds that he presents a significant risk of serious harm to the public. I suspect that it is unlikely in this case but if imposed it would involve Johnson having an extra period on licence added to the custodial part of his sentence. The Judge will then have regard to the Principal of Totality. This means that the overall sentence imposed for the three offences should not exceed the total sentence that is just and proportionate in the circumstances. Given that the three offences relate to the same victim I suspect the Judge will sentence Johnson to the matter for which he was convicted and impose concurrent sentences (i.e. sentences that run alongside each other) for the other two matters.

In addition as a result of his conviction and plea Johnson is now subject to the Notification Requirements under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (what is commonly known as the Sexual Offenders Register). This will be for the rest of his life.

Why wasn’t he sentenced there and then?

The Judge has adjourned the hearing to allow the Probation Service to prepare a Pre Sentence Report. The Judge will have regard to this report when sentencing Johnson and when determining whether he is dangerous. This is usual procedure particularly when as in this case someone has not been in trouble before.


Blog by Gerry Scott, Criminal Solicitor

Share

Related Staff

Request a Callback