Novak Djokovic’s lawyers appeal against the tennis pro’s visa withdrawal. In a first hearing, the court made concessions, but Australian legal experts are highly critical of the Serb’s chances of participating in the Australian Open.
Novak Djokovic remains a free man for now. In a short-term hearing on Friday evening, Australian time, federal judge Anthony Kelly proposed that the deportation of the unvaccinated tennis world number one be postponed until Saturday, 4 p.m. (local time). This gives all parties the opportunity for further negotiations and the option of a personal hearing of Djokovic. His lawyer Nicholas Wood then declared that he wanted to file such an application immediately and confirmed that the 34-year-old Serb would not be taken into custody pending deportation. A lawyer for the Australian government had instructed “not to arrest my client today”.
The instruction to leave the country immediately seems to have been suspended for the time being. The nine-time Australian Open winner apparently also escapes accommodation in the deportation hotel in Melbourne by setting a new hearing date. Djokovic had to stay there between being refused entry and the decision in his favor due to a procedural error committed by Australia. However, Australian Government Counsel Stephen Lloyd said Djokovic must report to authorities on Saturday and then remain there until the next court hearing.
Djokovic’s lawyer Wood pushed for an expedited procedure in the post-visa revocation hearing. His client has to play his first round match at the first Grand Slam tournament of the year early next week, so “we are very concerned about the timing.” Wood also complained that it took Immigration Secretary Alex Hawke about four days to make his decision after successfully appealing the first visa suspension. He considers the renewed cancellation of the residence permit to be “a clear legal error”.
Djokovic’s lawyers also reported loudly to the immigration minister Guardian reporter Luke Henriques-Gomes, the visa withdrawal is based on the assumption that the presence of the Serb would strengthen the opponents of vaccination in Australia. Instead, Hawke decided to expel a man “of great public standing” from the country. In the course of the discussions about his entry, Djokovic had to admit that he had made public appointments in mid-December despite knowing about a positive PCR test and thus broke the prescribed isolation. In the summer of 2020 he organized the “Adria Tour”, which was harshly criticized for inadequate corona protection measures and had to be canceled prematurely due to numerous corona cases.
“Public interest” not clearly defined
However, Djokovic’s chances of successfully challenging Hawke’s visa withdrawal appear to be slim. The Australian Newspaper “The Age” reported with reference to dr Sangeetha Pillai, constitutional lawyer at the “Andrew and Renata Kaldor Center for International Refugee Law”, that a legal dispute is likely to end in the Serb’s favour. Because Hawke’s decision under Section 133C(3) of the Migration Act “reduced the risk of committing a procedural error”. Djokovic’s lawyers successfully challenged the first visa withdrawal at Melbourne Airport with one of these.
By invoking the aforementioned law, Hawke made his decision “on a solid basis,” continued Pillai. “The Age” also quotes immigration attorney Karyn Anderson, who gives an assessment of the “public interest”. Hawke also referred to this in his decision to revoke Djokovic’s visa “for reasons of health and good order”. According to Anderson, “public interest” is, on the one hand, only vaguely defined and, on the other hand, courts are very reluctant to annul government agencies’ decisions based on them.
also dr Janina Boughey from the University of New South Wales comments in a video published by the university, according to the British “Guardians” critical of the unvaccinated tennis pro’s prospects. The legal norm “which the Minister [Hawke; Anm.d.Red.] assigns personal decision-making powers, there are fewer opportunities for appeal,” said Boughey. Djokovic could “obtain a review in court”, but the substantive level was less up for discussion, but rather the question of whether the process was carried out correctly. “It Everything would then depend,” said Boughey, “on how the minister uses his powers and whether he has done so in a lawful manner”. However, Hawke’s decision-making power is “very great”, which is why “realistically Mr Djokovic’s chances of success are low”.