COVID-19 and Tennis

[MARTINE]

I’m no lawyer but ….Joker’s team arguing ministers actions is anti vax agitating (not NoVax himself) is akin to seatbelt opponents becoming agitated when this became law and by making the law and enforcing it opponents are more agitated and it’s the ministers fault ??!!

 

[Port Power]

With the Full Federal Court having rolled out the judicial red carpet by accommodating an urgent weekend hearing, I would be astonished if there is no decision before play starts tomorrow, even if the reasons come out later.

Then if Novax loses, all eyes to see if the High Court is willing to replicate the judicial red carpet by entertaining an urgent application for special leave to appeal (although if there's no reasons for decision issued immediately, he'd be pushing the proverbial uphill to attract any urgent interest from the High Court).

Regardless of who wins today, it will be interesting to see if the loser pursues an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court in the usual (slow) timeframe, because it seems to me that there are important legal issues here even after the burning urgency of the start of the AO is taken away. And both parties may well want it sorted out before AO 2023.

As this hearing is before three judges, there cannot be an appeal. This was stated on ABC news last night.

 

[Port Power]

I’m no lawyer but ….Joker’s team arguing ministers actions is anti vax agitating (not NoVax himself) is akin to seatbelt opponents becoming agitated when this became law and by making the law and enforcing it opponents are more agitated and it’s the ministers fault ??!!

Has it been going on like this for 3 hours now? So many “umms and aahs “! Lots of repetition! Those who have listened all through are dedicated.

 

[jakeseven7]

I’m painting today .. so will tune in for the final result of the match whilst watching my own paint dry

I think watching paint dry would be more interesting than watching this actually

 

[MARTINE]

Has it been going on like this for 3 hours now? So many “umms and aahs “! Lots of repetition! Those who have listened all through are dedicated.

I never watched it - just saw the media references to ‘the defence’ and I don’t understand it ..but then I’m no lawyer
back to watching paint dry..

 

[TheRealTMA]

Yes which is why I struggle to see how the Government will lose out here. Federal courts generally don’t ever reverse ministerial decision making. How many times have we seen those in detention, refugees, visa problems, and so on, take it to court and reverse any minister call? Never. And they have tried hundreds of times. The borders here are watertight.

How can one appeal a ministerial decision based on his personal opinion? The defence of “irrationally“ is mute. Many political decisions are partisan and irrational by any definition of the word.

 

[HappyFlyerFamily]

From abc blog

Minister didn't seek Djokovic's vaccination views before making decision​

Mr Wood is pointing to a section of Immigration Minister Alex Hawke's reasons where he says "I have not sought the views of Mr Djokovic on his present attitude to vaccinations".

Mr Hawke instead relied on public reporting of Djokovic's views and referred to them as "well known", something the tennis star's team disputes.

Mr Wood argues that "not only does that imply that the Minister contemplated doing so but decided not to.”

“It also implies the minister therefore also accepts that he doesn’t know what Mr Djokovic’s current views are.

"He didn't know what it was and he decided not to ask."

 

[TheRealTMA]

I’m painting today .. so will tune in for the final result of the match whilst watching my own paint dry

Judges portraits?

 

[HappyFlyerFamily]

From abc blog

Minister's lawyer says Djokovic could have got vaccinated​

Mr Lloyd says that Djokovic's views on vaccination are illustrated by the fact he is still unvaccinated, months after they became available.
“It’s open to infer that a person in the applicant’s position could have been vaccinated if he wanted to be," he says.
“That choice makes a broader inference as to his views on COVID vaccination."
He's arguing that it’s not just media reports that demonstrate Djokovic’s attitudes towards vaccination, as the world number 1's lawyers have suggested.

 

[HappyFlyerFamily]

From abc blog

Outlining the Immigration Minister's reasoning​

Mr Lloyd's just given a pretty good outline of some of the concerns the Immigration Minister had with regard to Djokovic's high profile.

“The concern is that he’s a high profile person and in many respects a role model … and that his presence in Australia would present more strongly to Australians his anti-vaccination views," he says.

"The applicant has some recent history of ignoring COVID safety measures.

“Even when he was infected … he undertook an interview and a photoshoot including taking his mask off.

"The minister took the view that his presence in Australia could encourage people to emulate [disregard for the rules].

“People use high-level athletes to promote ideas and causes all the time.

“His connection to a cause, whether he wants it or not, is still present and his presence in Australia was seen to pose an overwhelming risk."

 

[HappyFlyerFamily]

Hearing adjourned for one hour​

Mr Lloyd estimates he'll speak for about another hour after lunch. It'll be back at 1:30pm AEDT

- courtesy abc blog

Novak Djokovic 'extremely disappointed' with the court ruling against him — as it happened

Novak Djokovic issues a statement saying he is "extremely disappointed" by the Federal Court's decision to dismiss his application. He says he will cooperate with authorities over his removal from the country.

www.abc.net.au

 

[HappyFlyerFamily]

ABC blog

To recap...​

Ok so while we're on lunch break, let's revisit some of the key arguments from this morning.

Djokovic's defence team argues that the Minister failed to consider whether deporting Novak Djokovic would also have an impact on anti-vaccine sentiment in Australia, and thus his decision was illogical, irrational or unreasonable.

They also have told the court the Minister misrepresented media reports in order to over-egg the tennis star's views on vaccines and the level of support he receives from anti-vaxxers.

They argue there isn't enough evidence to find Djokovic's mere presence playing tennis in Australia would excite anti-vaccine sentiment, which was a conclusion reached by the Immigration Minister.

The Minister's lawyer has been arguing against the suggestion that the minister did not consider that deporting Djokovic could foster anti-vax sentiment, in the same way allowing him to stay could.

Stephen Lloyd says the minister was aware there were “consequences each way” but he didn’t have to go into all of that in his written reasons.

Mr Lloyd has also said there was enough evidence to draw a conclusion about Djokovic's beliefs, given he is not vaccinated and has had ample chance to change that.

He will continue his arguments after lunch, but in the meantime you can read a wrap of the morning here.

 

[MARTINE]

From abc blog

Outlining the Immigration Minister's reasoning​

Mr Lloyd's just given a pretty good outline of some of the concerns the Immigration Minister had with regard to Djokovic's high profile.

“The concern is that he’s a high profile person and in many respects a role model … and that his presence in Australia would present more strongly to Australians his anti-vaccination views," he says.
“People use high-level athletes to promote ideas and causes all the time.

“His connection to a cause, whether he wants it or not, is still present and his presence in Australia was seen to pose an overwhelming risk."

This is the only time I will say this …..but ……there is a place for ‘influencers’ after all - if it means the Joke gets booted out as he has become one …...a great many of them of course in the US/UK are actually now buried…
My final point is that I am sure only high profile very influential people get a special hearing before three judges of the Federal Court on a Sunday (when his/her honors would likely prefer to enjoying their days off)….

 

[TheRealTMA]

12:25pm ONE CRUCIAL WORD

Mr Lloyd said Minister Hawke did consider the consequence of either cancelling or not cancelling Djokovic’s visa. “He’s done his best to consider the matters, alive to the fact (Djokovic’s) views weren’t sought. That suggests the minister tried to look at things broadly.”

The whole thing sort of hinges on the word “may” ie Hawke doesn’t have to show anything other than Djokovic’s presence MAY cause the unrest he alleges, not that it is probable.

No Cookies | The Courier Mail

No Cookies

www.couriermail.com.au

 

[HappyFlyerFamily]

Abc b
l
og

Minister 'must have' considered possibility of emboldened anti-vaxxers or unrest​

The court has been circling the question of whether Mr Hawke weighed up the risk of anti-vaccine sentiment being inflamed by Djokovic's deportation, not just his ability to stay in Australia.

After being quizzed by Chief Justice James Allsop, the Immigration Minister's lawyer Stephen Lloyd says the Minister "must have" weighed up the possibilities, even if he didn't write them down in his reasons.

“They must have been part of his consideration of the balance," Mr Lloyd says.

 

[I love to travel]

Would be interested to know the process of decision making. Do they all get in a room debate it and then go away and make a decision independently or are they not allowed to discuss it at all? @Anna

 

[HappyFlyerFamily]

Abc blog

Minister wasn't bound to ask Djokovic about his vaccine beliefs, lawyer says​

Mr Lloyd is responding to the complaint from Djokovic’s team that the Minister did not inquire about the tennis star's views about vaccination.

The Minister’s reasons say he did not ask Djokovic what his current attitude to vaccination is, something Djokovic’s lawyers have criticised.

But Mr Lloyd disagrees that it counts as a legal failing.

“The mere fact that it might have been reasonable to make an inquiry, he wasn’t bound to make it,” he says.

 

[HappyFlyerFamily]

Abc blog

There is evidence supporting cancellation, lawyer says​

The Immigration Minister's lawyer Stephen Lloyd has finished his submissions.

His final point addressed the Djokovic camp’s claims there is no evidence to form a view that Djokovic is likely to influence anti-vaccine sentiment.

He says there is evidence of Djokovic's views, and that his status as a tennis star could allow him to "influence people who look up to him".

“The applicant’s views about or widely understood views about vaccination have come to the fore,” he says.

“The minister clearly sees that there is a risk that, in the same way as Mr Djokovic advertises or associates himself with a whole range of products.

“Rightly or wrongly, he is perceived to endorsed an anti-vaccination view and his presence here is perceived to contribute to that.

“The known facts … the knowledge of his perceived views and historical views and his unanswered views in combination with his status and presence could be seen to contribute to those issues. "

Post automatically merged: Jan 16, 2022

Abc blog

Djokovic's lawyer Nick Wood is making submissions in reply​

These are mostly fine points on arguments the court has already gone through.

But he's again pressing the point that the Minister should have considered — or more comprehensively considered — the potential consequences of cancelling the visa, including the risk of emboldened anti-vaccine sentiment.

He finishes by saying "the decision ought to be set aside".

He says that if the court rules in Djokovic's favour, it should quash the visa cancellation and make an order for his immediate release from detention.

The court is now adjourning for the judges to consider their decision​

Chief Justice James Allsop says the court may reconvene "this afternoon or perhaps tomorrow morning".

 

[HappyFlyerFamily]

Would be interested to know the process of decision making. Do they all get in a room debate it and then go away and make a decision independently or are they not allowed to discuss it at all? @Anna

With all due respect,they probably are a little like a jury: chat about their initial individual judgment, any open issues they might want time to look in

 

[Anna]

As this hearing is before three judges, there cannot be an appeal. This was stated on ABC news last night.

I expect the High Court was fascinated to hear that