Tthree judges of the federal court on Thursday revealed their reasons for backing the government’s order to deport tennis star Novak Djokovic, and explained that they did not enter into consideration of the “merits or wisdom of the decision.”
The judges unanimously supported the decision of Immigration Minister Alex Hawke, to deport the 34-year-old Serbian tennis player following an urgent appeal on the eve of what was to be Djokovic’s first match in defense of his Australian Open title. Djokovic accepted the verdict and a few hours later traveled from Melbourne to United Arab Emirates.
The presiding judge of the court, James Allsop, and Judges James Besanko and David O’Callaghan published on Thursday 27-page explanation of why they rejected the challenge.
“The court does not consider the merits or wisdom of the decision,” indicated Thursdays. “The court’s task is to rule on the legitimacy or legality of the decision.”
“Another person in the position of the minister could not have canceled Mr. Djokovic’s visa. The minister did aadi.
Djokovic had his visa revoked on January 6 at the Melbourne airport, hours after arriving in the country, because he has not been vaccinated against Covid-19. A judge later restored his visa for procedural reasons.
However, Hawke used a power under the Immigration Act to cancel his visa on Friday with the broader criterion of public interest.
Djokovic was “a known unvaccinated person”, whose presence in Melbourne could “foster anti-vaccine sentiment” and increase pressure on the health system, Hawke said in the 10-page document revoking the visa.
Hawke rejected Djokovic’s arguments that his deportation seemed “a politically motivated decision” which would jeopardize Australia’s role as the host country for the first Grand Slam of the year.
Many allege that the government deported Djokovic as response to public outrage that an unvaccinated athlete could have entered the country without undergoing quarantine, at the same time as the micron variant of the virus puts hospitals to the test, Home tests for Covid-19 are scarce and relatives of Australians living abroad cannot visit their loved ones because the authorities do not recognize the vaccines they received.
Judges rejected all three arguments in Djokovic’s appeal. The first was that the decision was illogical, irrational, or unreasonable. The second was that the minister could not conclude that Djokovic’s presence was a risk to health or order. The third was that the minister could not conclude that Djokovic had a known anti-vaccine stance.
“It was possible to infer that the public perceived that Mr. Djokovic was not in favor of vaccinations,” the judges indicated.
Djokovic, who has returned to Serbia, is in talks with lawyers about whether to sue the Australian government for $4.4 million (£3.2 million) for “bad treatment”, according to the British newspaper The Sun, which cited a anonymous source close to the tennis player’s agent, Edoardo Artaldi.
John Karantzis, a partner at Australian firm Carbone Lawyers, said Djokovic could have a case.
“If he focuses on the (…) unreasonable reasons that he would allege against him, and not on legal issues, he could be successful,” Karantzis told Seven Network television.
OTHER NEWS ON MICRON AND THE VACCINE IN MEXICO
-How many days should a person with Covid-19 be isolated?
-What are the Covid symptoms for the micron variant and when do they disappear?
-How to download your Covid-19 vaccination certificate by WhatsApp
-Covid-19 vaccination for children in CDMX: Aren’t you 15 years old yet? you can register it
-Can I receive the booster vaccine if I have Covid-19 by micron or any of its variants?
-Omicrn in children: Diarrhea, bronchitis and cough with phlegm, the effects of the new Covid-19 variant
