Port Adelaide star learns fate for umpire abuse

Zak Butters has had his $1500 fine for alleged umpire abuse dismissed, after the Appeals Board found juror Jason Johnson's actions during last week's Tribunal hearing "materially impacted" the proceedings.

In handing down its verdict, the Appeals Board offered the following:

"The primary cause of appeal essentially, is that the Tribunal misconducted itself in denying a fair hearing to player Butters by reason of the absence of Mr. Johnson on the video call.

"Now as a question of principle, every AFL player must expect, and even demand that a disciplinary tribunal hearing a charge against them must conduct themselves fairly.

"One aspect of this principle of fairness is that each member of the tribunal must pay attention to and consider the evidence and the submissions both for and against the case of the charged player.

"The appeal is upheld. The determination of the Tribunal is void and of no effect."

Port Adelaide challenged the $1500 fine handed to their acting captain Zak Butters for alleged umpire abuse in the side's Round 5 clash with St Kilda.

The case had already gone through the Tribunal, with that panel siding with umpire Nick Foot's version of events.

Butters was adamant he committed no wrongdoing, and said nothing that constitutes abuse. The finding against him has not been overturned, but by way of the proceedings being impacted by juror Johnson's indiscretions, the appeal has been upheld. 

Mr. Houghton, in charge of making a decision, passed the case back to a "properly constituted Tribunal", but, as the AFL's representatives said in their submissions, they would not chase a re-trial should Butters' appeal be successful, so this appears to be the end of the matter entirely.

Follow Butters' Appeal Blog

6:20pm - The appeal is upheld. Butters has seen his charge dismissed.

6:13pm - The verdict is imminent

5:58pm - Deliberations are underway.

5:56pm - "This is no different to the cases which we, in our long careers, have seen, of mistrials being ordered because jurors were doing crosswords and sudokus and the like, and only half-paying attention."

"There's no difference between partially paying attention and not partially paying attention. It's no different than if he'd been sitting there doing a crossword."

"And in this circumstance, the courts would infer that he was performing a whole other job while he was at this appointment. It's not denied that it was an open inspection, and he was doing a whole 'nother job.

"And as I said before, he must have wanted those deliberations to be over quickly so that he could get on with his other job."

5:53pm - Appeals chair asks AFL lawyers:

"If your opponents succeed on that point, what do you say about the relief that this appeal board should grant?"

"If that be the case, then it would be appropriate that the finding of guilt be quashed...I confirm my instructions are that the AFL wouldn't press for a re-trial."

Confirmation the AFL would waive Butters' sanction if this appeal is successful.

5:49pm - Mr. Dinelli KC is adamant to outcome would not have been materially different if Mr. Johnson simply stayed in his office. This is becoming quite cyclical.

5:45pm - "That alone, couldn't rise to the standard that has been described... It was a minor lapse."

Mr. Dinelli KC and Mr. Ehrlich KC are at loggerheads as to the severity of the impact on proceedings that Mr. Johnson's conduct may (or may not) have had.

5:40pm - "At the end of the day, his contribution to that (deliberations), whilst it might have been regrettable, was done by phone from a car. (That) does not lead to the consequence which it has to for this ground for appeal to be succesful: that it would have had a material impact (on the verdict) because ultimately all three Tribunal members... were unanimous in the decision that was given."

5:38pm - "The Tribunal, under the regulations, is required to decide, on the balance of probabilities, whether a reportable offence has been committed."

Mr. Dinelli KC is adamant that Mr. Johnson's verdict hardly matters, as the vote was unanimous anyway.

5:35pm - "As you, Mr. Chairman, identified, the relevant test is one of not only an error of law, but that it had a material impact on the decision of the Tribunal."

5:32pm - Mr. Dinelli KC, representing the AFL, explains that Mr. Ehrlich KC failed to prove that an "error of law" impacted the verdict reached.

5:28pm - After silencing his pooches, Mr. Ehrlich KC forgets to unmute his microphone when resuming his arguments. You can't make this stuff up.

5:26pm - "I'm just going to mute you for a second and tell the dogs to be quiet. Terribly sorry."

5:25pm - The dogs have resumed their barking. Farcical.

5:23pm - Mr. Ehrlich KC loosely quotes Melbourne Demons legend Garry Lyon. 

"If your reputation is on the line and it's a hotly disputed argument, and there's a level of detail that needs to be resolved, I don't want the bloke who's sitting in judgement of me in his car, in transit."

"I want them sitting down taking copious amounts of notes, cross-referencing, listening intently and not being distracted by what may or may not be going on in the outside world."

"We say, that's exactly right."

5:20pm - "We say that a reasonable and well-informed person would be entitled to at least entertain a suspicion that Mr. Johnson did not perform his duties in accordance with his obligations." 

5:19pm - Mr. Ehrlich KC has done the unthinkable, and made oath law relevant to this case.

5:17pm - Proceedings are really in the weeds now, as oath law gets brought into proceedings. Jargon central.

5:13pm - Citing a precedent, Butters' representation states the following:

"A member of a tribunal who does not appear to be alert to what is being said in the course of the hearing may cause that hearing...to be unfair because the hearing should be by a tribunal, each member of which is concentrating on the case before him or her."

5:11pm - Paul L Ehrlich KC apologises for his dogs barking while he tees off on Mr. Johnson

5:10pm - "One cannot drive a motor vehicle and conduct an open inspection."

5:08pm - "It is axiomatic that Mr. Johnson was duty-bound to pay close attention to all of the evidence, the witness testimony, and submissions presented. We say that he could not have done so in the circumstances I've outlined."

5:07pm - "We say he was not paying proper attention from at least the time he had he began to be concerned that he had to leave the Tribunal, and attend his open inspection."

5:05pm - "We say it's objectively obvious, and I don't think it's denied, that Mr. Johnson was driving both during the final submissions after he had left his office and also whilst the deliberations commenced, at least."

5:02pm - Butters representation labels Jason Johnson's decision to leave his post, and re-join the Tribunal by phone, in his car, in peak hour traffic  'inexplicable' and that it 'amounted to a miscarriage of justice'.

5:01pm - Introductions of legal counsel are undertaken.

5:00pm - The hearing is underway.