yongchi wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 5:27 pm This is getting interesting:

His lawyers state that he had a COVID infection in December:

"Tennis star Novak Djokovic had a vaccine exemption to enter Australia after a Covid infection on 16 December, his lawyers say in court documents."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-59920379

So that would have been his second one if I am not mistaken. Didn't he also have COVID a couple of months ago?

Moreover, according to his lawyers:
[Mr Djokovic had also received, on 01 January 2022, a document from the Department
of Home Affairs (“Department”) in regard to his “Australian Travel Declaration”
(“Declaration Assessment”).5 The Declaration Assessment told Mr Djokovic that,
“[his] Australia Travel Declaration [had] been assessed,” and that “[his] responses
indicate[d] that [he met] the requirements for a quarantine-free arrival into Australia
where permitted by the jurisdiction of your arrival,” that jurisdiction being Victoria.]

From https://www.fcfcoa.gov.au/sites/default ... ssions.pdf
via
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-59920379

The plot thickens...

Anti-vax Novak Djokovic pictured smiling at tennis charity event with kids a day AFTER testing positive with Covid

ANTI-VAX tennis star Novak Djokovic was snapped smiling while handing out awards to a group of young tennis fans AFTER testing positive for Covid.

The World No 1 tested positive on December 16, but was seen not wearing a mask during a ceremony at the Novak Tennis Centre in Belgrade, which reportedly took place on December 17.

So, he either tested positive on 16th December and thought, "f**k it", let's do the kids charity event tomorrow", or he was not positive on December 16th and his new defence is bullshit.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/17258987 ... -positive/

Doc67 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 09, 2022 12:09 pm

yongchi wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 5:27 pm This is getting interesting:

His lawyers state that he had a COVID infection in December:

"Tennis star Novak Djokovic had a vaccine exemption to enter Australia after a Covid infection on 16 December, his lawyers say in court documents."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-59920379

So that would have been his second one if I am not mistaken. Didn't he also have COVID a couple of months ago?

Moreover, according to his lawyers:
[Mr Djokovic had also received, on 01 January 2022, a document from the Department
of Home Affairs (“Department”) in regard to his “Australian Travel Declaration”
(“Declaration Assessment”).5 The Declaration Assessment told Mr Djokovic that,
“[his] Australia Travel Declaration [had] been assessed,” and that “[his] responses
indicate[d] that [he met] the requirements for a quarantine-free arrival into Australia
where permitted by the jurisdiction of your arrival,” that jurisdiction being Victoria.]

From https://www.fcfcoa.gov.au/sites/default ... ssions.pdf
via
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-59920379

The plot thickens...

Anti-vax Novak Djokovic pictured smiling at tennis charity event with kids a day AFTER testing positive with Covid

ANTI-VAX tennis star Novak Djokovic was snapped smiling while handing out awards to a group of young tennis fans AFTER testing positive for Covid.

The World No 1 tested positive on December 16, but was seen not wearing a mask during a ceremony at the Novak Tennis Centre in Belgrade, which reportedly took place on December 17.

So, he either tested positive on 16th December and thought, "f**k it", let's do the kids charity event tomorrow", or he was not positive on December 16th and his new defence is bullshit.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/17258987 ... -positive/

Wow. This case smells fishy in more ways than I would have thought.
There is a third possibility: He could have gotten his positive PCR result back after the event.

But if he knew at the time he attended the event that he was COVID positive, he has no leg to stand on and should be sent home on the first plane available.

His wife according to the SUN article: "The only law that we should all respect across every single border is Love and respect for another human being."
Perhaps this was directed at her husband.

But it may not be over...see bolding

Novak Djokovic wins court battle to have visa cancellation overturned

Novak Djokovic has won his challenge to the Australian government's visa revocation and is set be released from immigration detention immediately.

Judge Anthony Kelly has ordered the decision of delegate to cancel Djokovic's visa be quashed, saying the cancellation "was unreasonable".

The Australian government has been ordered to pay all of Djokovic's costs.

Judge Kelly ordered Djokovic be released from immigration detention within 30 minutes of the order, which was read in open court about 5.15pm.

However, Commonwealth government barrister Christopher Tran followed the order being read by telling the court he had been instructed that the Minister for Home Affairs Karen Andrews could now use discretionary powers to cancel Djokovic's visa. Judge Kelly confirmed that if Djokovic was summarily removed in that way he would not be able to return to Australia for three years.

Edit: other news articles refer to: Immigration Minister Alex Hawke is considering whether to use his personal power under the Migration Act to cancel Djokovic’s visa



Full: https://www.9news.com.au/national/tenni ... 1e4f2d4596

Clutch Cargo wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:48 pm But it may not be over...see bolding

Novak Djokovic wins court battle to have visa cancellation overturned

Novak Djokovic has won his challenge to the Australian government's visa revocation and is set be released from immigration detention immediately.

Judge Anthony Kelly has ordered the decision of delegate to cancel Djokovic's visa be quashed, saying the cancellation "was unreasonable".

The Australian government has been ordered to pay all of Djokovic's costs.

Judge Kelly ordered Djokovic be released from immigration detention within 30 minutes of the order, which was read in open court about 5.15pm.

However, Commonwealth government barrister Christopher Tran followed the order being read by telling the court he had been instructed that the Minister for Home Affairs Karen Andrews could now use discretionary powers to cancel Djokovic's visa. Judge Kelly confirmed that if Djokovic was summarily removed in that way he would not be able to return to Australia for three years.

Edit: other news articles refer to: Immigration Minister Alex Hawke is considering whether to use his personal power under the Migration Act to cancel Djokovic’s visa



Full: https://www.9news.com.au/national/tenni ... 1e4f2d4596

I have become so confused by it all (I’m not across the detail)
Can anybody bullet point the relevant info (facts not half facts, believed facts, or interpretation or even semi informed best guesses)?
And why is Karen determined to boot him out?

Ok you can give your best sensible interpretation of it all if that’s all you’ve got

As far as I can discern, the judge quashed the visa cancellation on a technicality. ie after Djokovic was denied entry at the airport, he requested time to consult his lawyers and some bureaucrat at Border Force denied the request and cancelled his visa soon after. As I understand it, the judge considered that 'unreasonable' on procedural grounds.

Aside from that, there remains the matter of whether he satisfied entry requirements (in addition to granting of the visa) and whether he should or shouldn't be allowed to remain in Australia. A matter to be determined by the relevant, responsible minister..

Generally, the entry requirements require one to be double vaxed unless they have an approved medical exemption. Djokovic claims he has such an exemption on the basis he was recently infected but this is where it gets murky as to what is acceptable.

What a sh_t show.

"What more could Djokovic have done?'"
Judge Kelly asked this question earlier today, echoing the arguments of Novak Djokovic's lawyer, Nick Wood.
(https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-australia-59909477)

They agreed to lose on "not giving enough time to respond" because they knew it would have gotten worse otherwise, a lot worse, leaving them with no options except for digging in their heels.

(Which the may do now anyway, but at least they can point to a "weaker win for Djokovic in court" when justifying their next move in front of the court of public opinion.)

On the other hand, so far we have heard nothing as to why Mr. Djokovic was running around unmasked at an event while being COVID positive.

Unless he provides very good evidence that he learned the result later, he should go home for this reckless behavior.

It looks increasingly like there is no good side in this "show." The old Western movies were much easier.


Perhaps they should come to a "gentleman's" agreement:

"We take our loss and refrain from any further attempts to cancel your visa. You withdraw from the tournament and leave at your earliest convenience."

violet wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 3:53 pm

Clutch Cargo wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:48 pm But it may not be over...see bolding

Novak Djokovic wins court battle to have visa cancellation overturned

Novak Djokovic has won his challenge to the Australian government's visa revocation and is set be released from immigration detention immediately.

Judge Anthony Kelly has ordered the decision of delegate to cancel Djokovic's visa be quashed, saying the cancellation "was unreasonable".

The Australian government has been ordered to pay all of Djokovic's costs.

Judge Kelly ordered Djokovic be released from immigration detention within 30 minutes of the order, which was read in open court about 5.15pm.

However, Commonwealth government barrister Christopher Tran followed the order being read by telling the court he had been instructed that the Minister for Home Affairs Karen Andrews could now use discretionary powers to cancel Djokovic's visa. Judge Kelly confirmed that if Djokovic was summarily removed in that way he would not be able to return to Australia for three years.

Edit: other news articles refer to: Immigration Minister Alex Hawke is considering whether to use his personal power under the Migration Act to cancel Djokovic’s visa



Full: https://www.9news.com.au/national/tenni ... 1e4f2d4596

I have become so confused by it all (I’m not across the detail)
Can anybody bullet point the relevant info (facts not half facts, believed facts, or interpretation or even semi informed best guesses)?
And why is Karen determined to boot him out?

Ok you can give your best sensible interpretation of it all if that’s all you’ve got

Here is my sensible interpretation of it all.

It's all about power and being able to have control over those below you. If you lose that power, you dont have a job.

yongchi wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 4:14 pm What a sh_t show.

"What more could Djokovic have done?'"
Judge Kelly asked this question earlier today, echoing the arguments of Novak Djokovic's lawyer, Nick Wood.
(https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-australia-59909477)

They agreed to lose on "not giving enough time to respond" because they knew it would have gotten worse otherwise, a lot worse, leaving them with no options except for digging in their heels.

(Which the may do now anyway, but at least they can point to a "weaker win for Djokovic in court" when justifying their next move in front of the court of public opinion.)

On the other hand, so far we have heard nothing as to why Mr. Djokovic was running around unmasked at an event while being COVID positive.

Unless he provides very good evidence that he learned the result later, he should go home for this reckless behavior.

It looks increasingly like there is no good side in this "show." The old Western movies were much easier.


Perhaps they should come to a "gentleman's" agreement:

"We take our loss and refrain from any further attempts to cancel your visa. You withdraw from the tournament and leave at your earliest convenience."

The way I see it:

For Djokovic: could either be a win or a lose situation depending on whether he stays and plays in the OZ Open or not.

For Australia: either lose or lose situation. Whether he stays and plays in the Aus Open or not, Djokovic was treated badly and it appears to the rest of the world it has been a bureaucratic nightmare. Lose face either way and there will be a cost to reputation. Which option is the least damaging?

yongchi wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 4:14 pm

On the other hand, so far we have heard nothing as to why Mr. Djokovic was running around unmasked at an event while being COVID positive.

Unless he provides very good evidence that he learned the result later, he should go home for this reckless behavior.

That's an irrelevance to this matter, as it was in Serbia

Also, the world is getting to the point where we will treat covid like a cold or a flu, guess Djokovic is just a trailblazer lol

Clutch Cargo wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 4:12 pm As far as I can discern, the judge quashed the visa cancellation on a technicality. ie after Djokovic was denied entry at the airport, he requested time to consult his lawyers and some bureaucrat at Border Force denied the request and cancelled his visa soon after. As I understand it, the judge considered that 'unreasonable' on procedural grounds.

I would say that was a smart move on the part of the government to salvage what was salvageable. Better to sell and to justify further actions.

If I understand this right, the government conceded:

See here:
"The respondent concedes that the delegate’s decision to proceed with the
interview and make a decision to cancel the applicant’s visa pursuant to
s 116 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) was unreasonable in circumstances
where: "
....

https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/__data/asse ... 22-003.pdf

And here:

[The court was due to hear from the lawyer representing the Department of Home Affairs from 3.15pm and he had an additional 90 minutes to plead his case.

Instead, he sought a further adjournment and returned at 5.15pm to tell the court the Federal Government had agreed to revoke the decision to cancel the visa.

Djokovic supporters had high hopes for the case after Judge Kelly said he was 'agitated' learning all the steps the world No.1 took to assure he'd be welcome in Australia and free to play his favourite Grand Slam.

'A professor and qualified physician provided the applicant a medical exemption, the basis of which was given by an independent expert panel established by the state government... that document was in the hands of the delegate,' Judge Kelly said.

'The point I'm somewhat agitated about is, what more could this man have done?']

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ation.html