The Judge adjusted her glasses and cleared her throat, ready to deliver her judgement.

"On Saturday 22^nd July 2000 a football match was played at the Melbourne Cricket Ground between the Essendon Football Club and the Carlton Football Club," she began.

She went on, in more detail than Evans believed necessary, to tell the story of the day’s events. As she described the way Broadbent had emerged from the pack holding his head, Evans turned around to seek the reassurance of his parents. Instead he saw Bluey McLaren’s smirking face.

Justice Rhonda Wilson had written her decision with great care, ensuring she appeared well-informed by interrogating her teenage son, a mad Hawthorn supporter, on the finer points of the game. She then moved on to explain the nature of the contract between Evans and the AFL, and how it incorporated all the rules of the AFL. Those rules, she explained, stated that in some respects the Tribunal and Appeal Board were not obliged to accord natural justice. . "The Board was in a better position to determine the appropriate penalty," she said, "and so I will only decide whether the Board came to its decision in a proper manner." She posed a number of questions:

Does the Tribunal or Board have to follow the rules of natural justice? Can the Supreme Court interfere when Evans had signed a contract that agreed to exclude some of these rules and therefore the review of courts?

She explained that as far back as 1910 the High Court had decided that courts have the power to review the decisions of domestic tribunals like the AFL Tribunal. She said it was not in the best interests of society for these sorts of decisions to be made without any review, especially when it involved the livelihoods of players. However, she admitted it was a difficult question, because it would be impossible to expect that every decision of the Tribunal should be liable to the interference of the courts.

"It would always be better for the player to get a thorough hearing at the Tribunal, so no review was necessary, but given the existence of an Appeal Board it is difficult to sustain the proposition that a player does not have the benefit of a proper hearing."

Could the AFL Tribunal or Board do what it likes? The Tribunal or Board had to base its decision on the evidence – it couldn’t come to a decision that was not reasonably based on the evidence before it.

"But there is a great deal of latitude for these bodies, because they do not operate according to strict rules of evidence and therefore it is difficult to set a standard for the correctness or otherwise of the decision. But in this case, Evans could only be found guilty of the charge if it had been reasonably arrived at on the evidence presented before the Tribunal. Given the latitude available to the Tribunal, in my opinion the evidence was sufficient to maintain the charge.

"The AFL is entitled to give a short notice in the circumstances, otherwise the appeal mechanism might be abused. Anyhow, the informality is such as to not require much notice, and the denial of legal representation is not absolute. In this case the Appeal Board decided the circumstances were not so exceptional as to warrant legal representation, and I agree. Finally I think it would have been better for the Board to provide reasons for its decision, but I am not convinced by the submission of plaintiff's Counsel that this is a requirement of natural justice."

In conclusion, she decided that:

"I have reached the conclusion that the plaintiffs, Mr Evans and the Essendon Football Club, have not made out their case. There is not sufficient before me to supplant my view of the facts as they were alleged for the adjudication of the Board, notwithstanding that the umpire nearest the scene did not express the view that he believed Mr. Evans had struck Mr Broadbent; the video evidence is not persuasive on the balance of probabilities, particularly given the expert testimony on the validity of the video evidence, which was not challenged; the explanation given by Mr Evans, that he was off balance and so his elbow was raised, was plausible.

"Although I am critical of their conclusions, on balance, the presence of an Appeal Board and the lack of direct evidence of complete unreasonableness requires that the plaintiffs cannot succeed in these proceedings, and I find in favour of the respondent AFL".

Later that night, whilst dining at a city restaurant owned by an Essendon coterie member, Evans took the club Chief Executive Officer Basher Mcgee aside. "I swear, it wasn’t me."

"Don’t worry son," Basher replied to the shattered player, "what goes around comes around."