Open for inspection: The AFL Tribunal under Scrutiny

13 May

At his Tribunal hearing, Zak Butters was fined $1,500 for abusing field umpire Nick Foot during Port Adelaide’s round five loss to St Kilda.[1] Foot alleged that, following a free kick paid to St Kilda, Butters had asked “How much are they paying you?”[2] Despite the exchange not being picked up by the umpire’s microphone, the Tribunal found it “implausible” that Foot would have invented the offending comments.[3]

On 20 April 2026, the AFL Appeals Board quashed the decision and cleared Butters of the charge. The appeal hearing, however, barely referenced the original incident. Butters appealed on the basis of an error of law and a miscarriage of justice arising from the conduct of Tribunal panel member Jason Johnson. The circumstances of the hearing raise serious questions about procedural fairness and the legitimacy of the AFL Tribunal process.

A panellist behind the wheel

Partway through the Tribunal hearing, Johnson disconnected from his desktop, switched to his mobile, and got into his car.[4] For at least 12 to 14 minutes, including during closing submissions, the 2000 Essendon premiership player turned real estate agent was at the wheel, driving to an open home for inspection.[5]

The appeal was brought on the grounds that an error of law had a material impact on the decision of the Tribunal. Paul Ehrlich KC, for Butters, said Johnson’s actions were “inexplicable” and “amounted to a miscarriage of justice.”[6] He drew the analogy that the present situation was no different from the cases in which mistrials have been declared because a juror was doing sudokus or a crossword.[7]

It is well established that domestic sporting bodies are obliged under the common law to conduct fair hearings. Independent of any rules or by-laws, they must accord with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.[8] Procedural fairness relevantly requires adherence to “the hearing rule.”[9] This principle entitles a person to notice of the case against them and a genuine opportunity to be heard before an attentive decision-maker.[10]

The hearing rule was engaged in this particular appeal. Ehrlich contended that a panel member adjudicating from behind the wheel mid-submissions cannot give the parties the engaged attention the hearing rule demands.[11] Butters was not denied a hearing in form, but he was denied one in substance.

The AFL’s defence

Despite this settled doctrine, the AFL defended both the original decision and Johnson’s conduct. Albert Dinelli KC, for the AFL, stressed that “the relevant test is not just that it led to an error of law, but that it had a material impact on the decision.”[12] He conceded Johnson’s conduct was regrettable but described it as a “minor lapse” that had not deprived Butters of his right to a hearing.[13]

Johnson himself, speaking to CODE Sports, took a similar line. He insisted the hearing “wasn’t compromised” by his change of device, and the move to his car didn’t impact his ability to deliberate with other tribunal members.[14] In the same breath, however, Johnson conceded he knew as soon as it happened that he had made an error moving to his car.[15]

The decision

After only 14 minutes of deliberation, the Appeals Board threw out the charge. The hearing chair, Will Houghton KC, said the attention and consideration required for a hearing of this nature was of the utmost importance.[16] Johnson’s departure from the call and then continued participation while driving, he found, “must raise in the mind of a fair-minded football observer a reasonable apprehension” that the Tribunal was not conducting itself properly.[17]

The cost of $1,500 justice

There is a final point that should not be lost. Port Adelaide reportedly spent $30,000 to overturn the $1,500 fine, including a $10,000 appeal fee and senior counsel costs.[18] What does that mean? It means the procedural failure exposed here will only ever be corrected where the affected party has the resources to pursue it.

The standard we want?

Johnson’s conduct, and the AFL’s defence of it, reflect a system out of step with the seriousness of what it does. The AFL’s defence treated a disciplinary hearing as something closer to administrative housekeeping than an adjudicative process. It should be common sense that a Tribunal member ought not to be adjudicating from behind the wheel. Tribunal decisions carry real consequences and ought to be treated that way. In this instance, the fine was only $1,500, but the money was never the issue. This case carried significant weight because it pitted a player’s word against an umpire’s, with the ultimate decision effectively branding one of them a liar.

The Tribunal cannot demand that its findings be respected if it will not respect its own process. Why should fans, and players for that matter, take its findings seriously? A change in culture is clearly overdue.

References

[1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-04-20/afl-tribunal-zak-butters-appeal-live-blog/106583582

[2] Ibid

[3] Ibid

[4] https://www.afl.com.au/news/1502650/the-verdict-is-in-butters-learns-fate-after-appeal-hearing

[5] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-04-20/afl-tribunal-zak-butters-appeal-live-blog/106583582

[6] https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2026/apr/21/zak-butters-afl-tribunal-barking-dogs-real-estate-agent

[7] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-04-20/afl-tribunal-zak-butters-appeal-live-blog/106583582

[8] https://www.sportslawyer.com.au/a-fair-hearing-in-sport/

[9] https://www.claytonutz.com/insights/2024/december/public-law-essentials-procedural-fairness

[10] Ibid

[11] https://www.afl.com.au/news/1502650/the-verdict-is-in-butters-learns-fate-after-appeal-hearing