Port Adelaide has had success in appealing the guilty verdict against Zak Butters regarding an allegation of umpire abuse, asserting that the conduct of juror Jason Johnson constituted an error of law. During the appeal, which had a rather unusual atmosphere, Port’s counsel Paul Ehrlich KC argued that Johnson’s decision to leave his office to attend a house inspection during the tribunal hearing represented a “miscarriage of justice.”
Johnson, a real estate agent, had to drive to the inspection site, a move that Ehrlich suggested interfered with the proper proceedings of the tribunal. This hearing was marked by distractions, including Ehrlich’s own dog barking, prompting him to mute himself and turn off his camera at one point. Nevertheless, this disruption did not affect Butters, who is now relieved from a $1500 fine that stemmed from the original guilty verdict.
Butters faced accusations of having told umpire Nick Foot, “how much are they paying you?” following a free kick awarded against Port during their round five loss to St Kilda. However, he maintained that he actually said, “surely that’s not a free kick?” and reaffirmed his stance in discussions with the media.
The crux of the appeal focused on Johnson’s behaviour rather than the specifics of what Butters allegedly said. Ehrlich provided Google Maps evidence indicating that the drive would take approximately 20 to 25 minutes, while AFL counsel Albert Dinelli contended it would only take around 12 minutes. Dinelli argued that Johnson’s relocation did not signify a legal error. Ultimately, the appeals board concluded that the tribunal had mishandled the case, thereby depriving Butters of a fair hearing due to Johnson’s actions. Nonetheless, the board decided that the charge of umpire abuse would not be dismissed but instead referred for a re-trial—a path that the AFL has chosen not to pursue.