not sure whom it will interest, but thought I would post it anyway.

Did this as part of my Administrative Law course last year, I received a credit for my paper.

Question:
What is the nature of the Australian Football League Tribunal and its Appeals Board process and what similarities exist between the process of the AFL Tribunal and Appeals Board compared to those established in Australian public law under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977?

The Australian Football League has many governing rules which dictate the way that the League is managed. These rules are established in the articles of association of the Australian Football League, and as such the Australian Football League is not a public law body. This is because there is no underlying legislation which was established to govern the rules; rather the Australian Football League is based around articles of association which are contractual in their nature. This topic is very interesting as there are many similarities that exist between the Australian Football League’s Tribunal and Appeals Board, and those which are established in public law legislation around the country, including similarities with sections of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) ACT 1977.. The Australian Football League’s Tribunal is always a hot topic during the season, and many new initiatives were established prior to the 2006 season to ensure that the system was fairer, with more certainty, efficiency and transparency than in previous years. This led to some significant changes in the way that the Australian Football League ran its Tribunal and Appeals system, and included such aims as lessening the financial burden that existed as a barrier to appeals, and also allowed for legal representation and a broader range of legal options available to both the players and the Australian Football League itself . These changes were seemingly made to increase the level of credibility of the Australian Football League Tribunal system, and give it a more definitive and structured procedure that allows for greater transparency and better procedural fairness, whilst it also helped strengthen the links between the Australian Football League’s Tribunal and Appeals Board system and those established in Australian public law.

The nature Australian Football League’s Tribunal follows a strict reporting process that identifies alleged offending players, which is then reviewed by a Match Review Panel and a decision made as to whether or not the player should be charged . This system operates with umpires, and other specified officials of the Australian Football league able to report and refer incidents to the Match Review Panel. This panel consists of a chairmen and two other members, and their role is to analyse matches, review the reports and referrals made by the designated officials, make charges when satisfied that a reportable offence has occurred, and allocate a penalty which the player can either accept, or face the Tribunal to contest the charge . It is also worth noting that the Match Review Panel also has the option to refer the matter directly to the Tribunal , if, on the basis of the evidence, the Match Review Panel cannot determine with sufficient certainty the relevant factors, or in the extreme scenario, if it is appropriate to do so on the circumstances of the offence, the record of the player, any suspecting mitigating factors, or any other unusual feature of the report . The Australian Football League Tribunal includes a chairman, a deputy chairman, six ex-players who act as a jury members and a secretary. The basic process of the Tribunal is to determine whether or not a player is guilty or innocent of their charge. This process is decided by the Jury which is made up of three of the six possible members. The Chairman manages the process and decides on points of law, and as such, the person who sits as chairman, David Jones, is a retired County Court Judge, as is his deputy chairman, John Hassett. The role of the Tribunal is to determine whether or not a player was guilty of the charge laid against them, and can also determine if the level of the charge should be changed if the player chooses to contest that or another specific element of their charge . This illustrates that the Australian Football League has taken significant steps to ensure that the process of the Tribunal hearing is fair, and by having a strong legal influence and former judges to determine points of law, it appears as though the Australian Football League has adopted a much more legally creditable system that is heavily influenced by Australian public law.

The Australian Football League’s Tribunal operates in a very similar manner to that which administrators make decisions in Australian public law. In public law the basic role of the administrative decision maker is to engage in statutory interpretation, in which they answer questions of law by correctly interpretation the relevant statutory provision. The Australian Football League’s Tribunal and Match Review Panel similarly uses the articles of association and table of offences as its ‘statute’ to determine which relevant factors will be used to mount a charge against a player. Administrators also must decide on the relevant questions of fact which arise during a case, and usually involve matters of primary fact such as who did what to whom. This is again very similar to the Tribunal process of the Australian Football League, however as the Australian Football League isn’t a statute; the Table of Offences and subsequent questions of fact can often become indistinguishable. This is due to the fact that the Tribunals table of offences is basically a description of primary fact that is used to grade the level of offence in the subsequent charge. Of course there is still much debate that can surround such contentious issues as what exactly constitutes high contact, or the difference between an in-play or out-of-play incident. The correct definitions of these terms consequently are very much playing the role of questions of law in the context of the Australian Football League’s Tribunal. The third role of administrators in coming to their decision is to determine exactly how the statue once correctly interoperated, applies to the facts of a relevant case. Often administrators are assisted in this task by a policy or a set of guidelines which act to help assist them in reaching their final decision. The Australian Football League’s Tribunal also operates in a similar manner, with the Tribunal following the guidelines of the Tables of Offences, combined with the questions of law and fact to determine the charge. This therefore illustrates that the decision making process of an administrator in public law in Australia is very similar to the decision making process that is used by the Australian Football League’s Tribunal and Match Review Panel to determine a charge on a player.

The Australian Football League Tribunal also offers a system by which a player charged with an offence is able to challenge the charge by appeal to the Appeals board, which is similar to the way in which a decision can be appealed against in Australian public law. In previous years the accessibility to the appeals board was quite heavily financially burdened onto the clubs, with a cost of approximately $10,000 to lodge an appeal. The 2006 season saw the Australian Football League Tribunal and Appeals Board adopted a cheaper, $5000 – with $2500 non-refundable, as the cost of appeal. The grounds for appeal that exist include, an error in law, that a decision was so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision having regard for the evidence before it, classification of offence manifestly excessive, or the sanction imposed was manifestly excessive. The Appeals board is run in a similar manner to the Tribunal, with Chairman, Jury and Secretary. The Chairman for the Appeals board, Peter O’Callaghan QC and his deputy chairman Brian Collins QC, both have a high level of legal expertise, and are often assisted by other legal council, whilst many players these days are also represented by legal council. The Appeals Board also enables players to seek leave of the Appeals Board so as they may produce fresh evidence; provided that the appellant can convince the Appeal Board that the evidence sought to be produced could not by reasonable diligence have been obtained prior to the conclusion of the Tribunal hearing and where that evidence is of sufficient value that had it been presented before the Tribunal, the Tribunal would have reached a different decision. This again illustrates the level of legality involved in the Appeals Board process, and demonstrates that the Australian Football League has attempted to add credibility to the system and develop a more legally inclined procedure and process that are strongly influenced by legislation established in Australian public law bodies.