![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/poster-fallback.png\"\/)
<\/p>\n
Follow our live coverage of Zak Butters\u2019 Appeal in our blog below! Can\u2019t see the blog?Tap here<\/a><\/p>\n Albert Dinelli again represented the AFL, while Paul Ehrlich represented Port Adelaide, with Will Houghton as Appeal Board chair with jurors Richard Loveridge and Stephen Jurica.<\/p>\n The Power said it was \u201cinexplicable and amounted to a miscarriage of justice\u201d that Tribunal juror and real estate agent Jason Johnson deliberated while driving in his car for around 20-25 minutes to an open inspection in Strathmore Heights.<\/p>\n They argued it amounted to jury \u201cmisconduct\u201d as Johnson did not disclose it beforehand, and believed he was not paying proper attention from the time he had to leave the Tribunal – which was during the Power\u2019s final submissions.<\/p>\n \u201cThis was not a mere change in platform … it is to be inferred his mind was elsewhere through final submissions because he was conscious he had to leave or be late for his open inspection,\u201d Ehrlich said.<\/p>\n They argued Johnson may have come to a different determination, and may well been able to convince others, had he been doing his duties properly, citing Garry Lyon\u2019s arguments on AFL 360 last week as \u201cexactly right\u201d<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cOne cannot drive a motor vehicle and conduct an open inspection and comply with juror duties,\u201d Ehrlich said.<\/p>\n The Power pointed to a High Court case which found \u201ca 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 held unfair because the hearing should be by a Tribunal member, each member of which is concentrating on the case before him or her.<\/p>\n \u201cThat is the position as I see it under English law quite apart from the European Convention on Human Rights.\u201d<\/p>\n Ehrlich needed to apologise at one stage for his dog barking during his arguments, and later went on mute so an unnamed woman could remove the dog from his office.<\/p>\n A dog. File photoSource: Supplied<\/p>\n Appeal Board chair Houghton asked what legal error had been made, and what a material impact may or may not have been suffered by his client – with Ehrlich saying \u201ca reasonable and well-informed person would be entitled to at least entertain a suspicion Johnson did not perform his duty in accordance with his obligations\u201d.<\/p>\n Ehrlich said if successful, his first submission would be for the case to be referred back to the Tribunal for a retrial, and if not to have it quashed.<\/p>\n Dinelli for the AFL argued Johnson fully participated in the hearing despite moving to his phone, and the past cases referenced by the Power \u201coverstated the position\u201d.<\/p>\n He also argued the Tribunal guidelines make it clear \u201cany hearing shall be conducted with as little formality and technicality, and with as much expedition as a proper consideration of the matter before it permits\u201d.<\/p>\n He also pointed to a guideline which states the Tribunal\u2019s verdict does not need to be unanimous, that is only two members need to agree.<\/p>\n Houghton questioned if the AFL was submitting that it \u201creally didn\u2019t matter\u201d what Johnson was doing, Dinelli said \u201cwhilst it might have been regrettable that it was done by phone from a car … it does not lead to a consequence that it had a material impact\u201d and argued he was still involved in the deliberations.<\/p>\n PREVIEW<\/p>\n Both Butters and the club are defiant in their belief the 25-year-old did no wrong, and are expected to argue that no sensible tribunal could find him guilty. Additionally, they will almost certainly argue an error in law under the appeals process.<\/p>\n