Sunderland football club made a “catastrophic error of judgment” when they allowed Adam Johnson to continue playing despite knowing he privately admitted kissing a 15-year-old schoolgirl, child protection experts have said.
The struggling Premier League club is facing mounting questions over its decision to stand by the midfielder after his arrest over child sex offences on 2 March last year.
Johnson, 28, was told to expect between five and 10 years in jail on Wednesday after being found guilty of sexual activity with a child. He admitted two other counts and was cleared of one further charge.
Amid growing calls for an external investigation into the club’s handling of the case, the prominent campaigner Peter Saunders, appointed by the pope to a Vatican sex abuse commission last year, said on Thursday: “Knowing what they knew about his behaviour, it is unacceptable that he was allowed to continue to play.
“But of course Sunderland AFC is not the first club to have shown disregard for the grossly inappropriate behaviour of an employee or indeed to have shown no regard for the child victim.”
In a carefully worded statement issued after the verdicts, Sunderland said they would have sacked Johnson immediately had club officials known he intended to plead guilty to two child sex offences.
However, the club failed to address evidence heard at Bradford crown court that Johnson privately admitted to the club as long ago as 4 May 2015 that he kissed the teenage fan and sent her sexually explicit messages.
In evidence to his trial, Johnson said he told “everything” to Margaret Byrne, Sunderland’s chief executive, at the meeting and there was no suggestion he would be sacked.
It also emerged at the trial that Byrne had copies of the 834 WhatsApp messages Johnson exchanged with the girl, as well as transcripts of their police interviews. In Johnson’s first police interview, he admitted kissing the girl on the lips and knowing she was underage.
Yet he was allowed to continue playing for the club until 6 February – the weekend before his trial – and earned nearly £3m after his suspension was lifted just 16 days after his arrest.
On Thursday night the Durham police detective who led the investigation, DI Aelfwynn Sampson, said the victim will “want to know why he was allowed back on the pitch”.
She added: “At the centre of this we have a 15-year-old girl who was an avid Sunderland fan and a massive fan of Adam Johnson, she describes him as her idol, she’ll want to know why he was allowed back on the pitch.”
A spokesman for the FA commented: “Adam Johnson’s conduct in this case is to be condemned. Our thoughts are with the victim and her family as they look to rebuild their lives after this traumatic ordeal.
“The FA’s safeguarding team spoke with the club in April 2015. Sunderland confirmed Adam Johnson did not have any roles with the club involving a position of trust with children and was not involved in their community schemes.
“The FA now awaits the sentencing hearing and the final decision of the court in this matter.”
Clare Phillipson, the director of Sunderland-based domestic violence group Wearside Women in Need, accused the club of an “absolute betrayal” of their fans for allowing Johnson to continue playing.
Phillipson called for the resignation of the club’s senior management and said there should be an external investigation.
She said: “It was all going on while Sunderland football club were making their despicable decision to ignore the victim, ignore the consequences on her, ignore how she would feel week after week being made out to be a liar, being vilified on social media because the football club effectively said to the fans he can’t have done anything wrong, innocent until proven guilty, when they knew all along what he had acknowledged and admitted. I just can’t believe they did that.”
Dr Melanie Lang, an expert in child protection and safeguarding at Edge Hill University in Lancashire, said Sunderland AFC would be “castigated” for failing in their duty to protect young people.
“He’s a role model. He’s coming out of training and matches where there are young people – like this 15-year-old girl; the club will be aware of that and they have a responsibility to safeguard everybody including the fans,” she said.
“They must have known that he was a potential risk at that point from what he admitted and it raises really big questions about why they prioritised a player above the safety and security of their fans.”
Lang said that as soon as Johnson admitted kissing the schoolgirl it should have been entered on to his disclosure and barring service record, used by companies to stop unsuitable employees coming into contact with vulnerable people.
She said there was nothing in law to stop Johnson playing football again because he was not coming into direct contact with children.
“The problem is reputational in the same way that nobody would touch Ched Evans,” she said.
Evans, who played as a striker for Sheffield United, was jailed in 2012 for raping a 19-year-old woman in a Welsh hotel.
Lang said: “If we take children seriously and take our responsibility and our duty of care to them seriously, then we shouldn’t touch him with a bargepole I would say. The girl involved has got to deal with what’s happened for the rest of her life. Even if he spends a couple of years in prison, if that, I think he’ll be toxic.”
In the statement on Wednesday night, Sunderland AFC said they had been under the impression Johnson would plead not guilty to all four child sex offence charges.
However, they failed to deny knowing nearly a year ago that Johnson privately admitted kissing and sending explicit messages to the girl – the two counts he eventually pleaded guilty to on 10 February.
The club “refuted in the strongest possible terms” the claim that they allowed Johnson to continue playing despite knowing he was going to change his pleas to guilty.
The statement continued: “Decisions in relation to the pleas and the conduct of the trial have been left entirely to Mr Johnson and his highly experienced and skilled legal team. Mr Johnson has admitted in evidence that he changed his plea on legal advice.”
“The club only became aware of the change of plea, in relation to two of the four counts on the indictment, on the first day of the trial, after hearing it reported through the media.
“The club was not advised in advance that Mr Johnson would plead guilty to any offence. Had the club known that Mr Johnson intended to plead guilty to any of these charges, then his employment would have been terminated immediately. Indeed, upon learning of the guilty plea on 11 February 2016, the club acted quickly and decisively in terminating Adam Johnson’s contract without notice.”