All in all, this evening's events have taken less time than might have been expected, given what was under debate.

In the end, the clear-cut decision of the appeal board quashed Zak Butters's conviction and fine.

It will be interesting to hear the reaction and potential fallout from this case tomorrow.

Stick with us on this website to find other developments.

In the meantime, thank you for joining us on the blog of this appeals board hearing, and from myself, Andrew McGarry, I wish you a very good evening!

Rohan,

Mr Houghton in his reasons made clear that the appeal board felt that the matter should be reheard by a properly constituted body.

However, given the fact that the AFL's clear instructions is that a second hearing should not be heard, that is where it rests.

Mr Houghton did say - and I didn't have time to add to the original post - that it would be up to others to decide if a second hearing was held.

Phillip,

It seems clear from what AFL Counsel, Albert Dinelli KC said, that there is no intention for another hearing.

As I said in the previous post, it means we won't ever have a conclusive decision on the rights and the wrongs of that initial incident at Adelaide Oval.

It's not the greatest of outcomes, but unless the AFL is willing to relitigate the case, that's where things will stand.

Before this hearing, we had no idea how long it would go or how in-depth it would go.

As appeals board chair Will Houghton said, the written submissions from the AFL and Zak Butters's counsel was very helpful in sorting things out.

The fact that the deliberations took under 15 minutes shows how cut-and-dried this case was from the board's perspective.

The fact that there was a majority of the original panel supporting the conviction and fine was irrelevant, given the third member of the panel was on the way to his car or driving for the final period of the hearing - including final submissions from Butters' counsel.

The case was made out that this infringed on the Power player's rights to a proper hearing.

Mr Houghton said in his findings, that "every AFL player should expect and demand that a disciplinary hearing must be conducted fairly."

According to the appeals board, Butters's hearing last week was not.

This of course means that the question of whether umpire Nick Foot heard what he thought he heard at Adelaide Oval, or whether Zak Butters had merely been questioning a free kick, will never be finalised. 

Appeals board chair Will Houghton is delivering the findings, starting by recapping the hearing and the issue with Jason Johnson's presence at the hearing.

Mr Houghton says the attention and consideration required for a hearing of this nature is of the utmost importance.

The interruption of the hearing by Mr Johnson's absence from the call "must raise in the mind of a fair-minded football observer a reasonable apprehension" that the tribunal was not conducting itself properly.

Mr Houghton says it was clearly an error of law that led to a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal is upheld.

Mr Houghton says there has been a suggestion that the hearing should not be reheld.

But he says that would not be in the interests of justice in this case.

"It should be remitted to a properly constituted [body]."

Jeanette,

Having listened to a number of Tribunal hearings (and court cases) over the years, the answer is we have no idea.

If the appeals board all agrees in a straightforward manner, we could be back in 20 minutes. If not, who knows?

The one thing I reckon I can say is that we will have a result tonight, regardless of how long it takes. We may not get reasons.

Warren,

I don't think we can say that at all.

The original hearing went for an hour and 40 minutes and covered a fair bit of ground.

The issue here is whether Jason Johnson's dual tasks on the day were a bad look (probably yes) and whether they amounted to an infringement of Zak Butters' rights (we don't know).

What we can say is that if the original verdict is thrown out because of the process, then that will be a very bad look for the AFL.

Having heard from both sides, appeal hearing chair Will Houghton thanks both counsel for their written and verbal submissions, and says the appeal board will retire and consider its verdict.

This is just the verdict on the first item of Butters' appeal.

If this is unsuccessful, the appeal will no doubt turn to the actual evidence and submissions from the original hearing.

If it is successful, given the submissions by both sides, it seems likely that the original decision against Butters would be quashed.

We will have to wait and see.

Butters counsel responds to the AFL's submissions, and says it is a "nonsense" that it doesn't matter whether a panel member is paying little or no attention.

"It's no different from cases we have seen ... where we have had mistrials where a juror has been doing sudokus or a crossword."

The AFL Counsel is asked for his position about what should happen if the  decision is quashed.

"If that is the case, it would be appropriate that the finding of guilt be quashed," Mr Dinelli KC says.

"The AFL would not press for a retrial in that case."

The hearing chair Will Houghton says to the AFL Counsel that "he [Mr Johnson] entered a property. He was hopeful of selling the property ... his attention would be taken, would it not?"

Mr Dinelli KC says it appeared that Mr Johnson was disconnected from the meeting for a very short period of time.

Asking the rhetorical question of whether that short time was enough to ruin the hearing:

"The answer to that we say is no - it was a minor lapse and not one that could be described as serious inattention.

"Mr Butters has not been deprived of his rights to the hearing."

AFL Counsel is continuing.

He is pointing out that the AFL is not bound by the rules of evidence.

"It can conduct itself in the manner in which it sees fit," Mr Dinelli KC said.

He adds that Mr Johnson had been a part of the hearing and had deliberated with his colleagues and had signed the reasons the following day.

AFL Counsel Albert Dinelli KC has begun responding to the first item of the appeal.

"He [Butters' counsel] did focus on [Mr Johnson} causing an irregularity that led to a miscarriage of justice," Mr Dinelli KC said.

"But the relevant test is not just that it led to an error of law, but that it had a material impact on the decision."

He said the AFL agreed it was regrettable that Mr Johnson disconnected from the hearing (to go to the open inspection) but that did not mean that his actions led to an error of law [or had a material impact].

We're back. Hearing chair Will Houghton has asked Mr Ehrlich KC what relief the Tribunal should give if they agree that the decision should be quashed.

"That the board should quash the decision," he replied.

"Two options from there - it can order it to be reheard, or in the interests of justice say enough is enough [and not require a second hearing]."

The joys of remote meetings and hearings.

Mr Ehrlich KC has asked for a few moments grace, so he can tell his rather vocal dog to be quiet.

Counsel says that whether or not Johnson heard all the deliberations is not the point.

"We say he could not have properly considered them (the deliberations) while he was driving a motor vehicle."

They have laid out a timeline where Johnson's video froze, then cut out and then disconnected.

A minute and 20 seconds later the AFL counsel raised his absence and there was a call to get him back.

He rejoined, and then his video came back - Butters counsel says that Johnson appeared in the drivers' seat of a car, and that poles and trees could be seen moving past.

He says that their case is that a period of at least 12 to 14 minutes that Johnson was still driving his car.

"We say a well-reasoned person would be entitled to have a suspicion that Mr Johnson did not uphold his duty ... to pay proper attention."

Mr Ehrlich KC says their case is that the Tribunal should quash the verdict.

The hearing is underway.

Butters' counsel is speaking to open the case, pointing to their first reason for the appeal - that Tribunal member Jason Johnson left his business and got in his car during the final submissions and deliberations.

Counsel said that his behaviour was "inexplicable" and "amounted to a miscarriage of justice".

Mr Johnson is a real estate agent, and was driving to an open inspection.

"We say it is to be inferred that Mr Johnson was distracted, and distracted before he left his office," Butters' counsel Paul Ehrlich KC said.

They say that Mr Johnson failed in his duty to pay close attention to the testimony.

Usually when there's a challenge to a penalty at the AFL Tribunal, it involves players being banned for one or more matches.

Not this time. This isn't about someone trying to hang onto Brownlow medal eligibility, or make sure they are available for a big match.

Regardless of tonight's result, Zak Butters will be running out at Adelaide Oval on Saturday night against Geelong.

This isn't really about the fine, either.

$1,500 is a drop in the ocean for a top-line AFL footballer, especially one who has been fined more than $50,000 in his career for various infractions.

What this is about — and why it got this far in the first place — is a player's word against an umpire's word, and which person's word the Tribunal takes as true.

Butters, who is not just a star of the AFL but acting captain of Port Adelaide, believes he has been branded a liar by the original Tribunal finding.

Tonight the outcome will either exonerate him — suggesting umpire Nick Foot heard wrong — or back the original result, leaving Butters with a permanent mark against his record.

The original hearing lasted an hour and 40 minutes, before the panel of Renee Enbom KC, Jason Johnson and Darren Gaspar deliberated for 25 minutes and upheld the charge of abusive and insulting language towards an umpire.

The Tribunal had a 5:45pm deadline and gave its verdict before then, with reasoning to be distributed the following day.

The Tribunal was "satisfied to the requisite standard" that Butters had made the alleged remark.

"It is implausible that Mr Foot would invent the offending comment and it was not put to him that he had done so," the judgement said.

"It was put to him that there were several distractions and that he had misheard what Mr Butters said. We also consider that to be implausible."

Once those reasons were delivered, Port Adelaide announced it would challenge the decision.

You can read more in our story here: