The Australian government has revealed that while Novak Djokovic poses a “negligible” risk of spreading COVID-19, his mere presence can cause “feelings against vaccination”, court documents reveal. ..
Meanwhile, Djokovic’s lawyer argues that the proceedings against the tennis star were “illogical,” and that Immigration Minister Alex Hawke’s reasoning was influenced by a misjudgment identified last week.
The Serbian visa drama dominated the accumulation in the Grand Slam of the first Australian Open this year and confused attempts to defend his title.
In a 258-page affidavit outlining the reasons for canceling Djokovic’s visa, Immigration Minister admitted Unvaccinated tennis stars only pose a “negligible risk” to the community to infect the virus.
However, when Hawk allowed Djokovic, he said he was a “notable unvaccinated individual” and other unvaccinated Australians “refused to obtain jabs and strengthened their views. , May reduce booster dose intake. ” “
“Mr. Djokovich’s continued presence in Australia can lead to increased sentiment towards vaccination in the Australian community, which in itself can be a source of community communication in Australia in rallies and protests. It can lead to an increase in the kind of public anxiety that we have previously experienced in, he said.
Hawk attended an interview last month after being informed of a positive COVID-19 result, referring to Djokovic’s self-proclaimed “misjudgment.” .. “
This, in turn, can lead to the transmission of the disease and a serious risk to their health and others, “he writes.
In response to the Minister’s decision Djokovic’s lawyer accused The government did not consider whether its actions aroused opposition to vaccination in the first unsuccessful bid to prevent top-ranked athletes from staying in Australia.
They also claimed that Hawk “did not quote evidence” in support of his finding that Djokovic’s presence in Australia might encourage others to ignore the quarantine rules.
“Cancelling Mr. Djokovic’s visa and deporting him would obviously have a negative impact on the public interest and, in honor, would only serve political interests,” the document said.
“That action undermines Australia’s economic interests and jeopardizes the feasibility of Australia’s continued hosting of this prestigious international sporting event.”
“”[It would] It casts doubt on Australia’s border security principles and policies, and in fact the rule of law in Australia in general. “
Judge O’Callahan raised the possibility of convening a full court of three judges scheduled for AEDT at 9:30 am instead of one judge for Sunday’s hearing.
It was endorsed by Djokovic’s representative Paul Holdenson QC, but opposed by the government because it hindered the means of appeal.
Stephen Lloyd SC, on behalf of Hawk, said:
The decision on whether to sit on the full court is expected later in the day.