Federal court reveals reasons for Djokovic’s deportation

The Australian Federal Court has clarified the reasons for dismissing the legal objection to Novak Djokovic’s visa revocation. This concludes the week-long story of the world’s number one man staying on the Australian coast and competing for the 21st Grand Slam.

In a full-bench unanimous decision, Judge James Allsop, Judge Anthony Besanko, and Judge David O’Callahan said their decision was not whether Jokovic poses a risk to Australia’s health, security, or order. Whether immigration minister Alex Hawke was legal in his decision to revoke a Serbian visa.

The Complete judgment Published five days after the decision was made (originally January 16th), Djokovic’s last attempt to stay in the country failed.

A federal court upheld the minister’s decision to deport Djokovic and ordered tennis stars to pay court costs.

The Immigration Minister’s decision was to deny other unvaccinated Australians “refuse to obtain jabs, strengthen their views and reduce intake” because Serbs are “prominent unvaccinated individuals”. I may refuse to do that. ” Of the booster dose. “

This decision means that Djokovic is prohibited from re-entering the country for three years. Djokovic will not be able to compete in future Australian Open unless the ban is overturned.

Novak Djokovic
Serbian tennis player Novak Djokovic will fly after federal court upholds the government’s decision to cancel the visa to play at the Australian Open on January 16, 2022 in Melbourne, Australia. Walk to Melbourne Airport before. (Lauren Elliott / Reuters).

Djokovic’s January 16 lawyer offered three reasons Why should the Minister of Immigration Hawk’s decision be abandoned?

First, the minister did not provide concrete evidence of Serbia’s “vaccination” stance, and second, there was no evidence that Djokovic’s presence was a risk to public health. Second, the decision was made “irrationally, irrationally, or irrationally.” Canceling his visa has the opposite effect and actually fosters feelings for vaccination.

The court dismissed all three reasons.

“It was clearly open to the minister to infer that Mr. Djokovic chose not to be vaccinated because he opposed vaccination or did not want to be vaccinated,” the judge wrote.

“The iconic world tennis star can affect people of all ages, young and old, but probably especially young and impressive people to emulate him. ..

“This is not fantasy. No evidence is needed. It is a perception of human behavior from being reasonably familiar with the human experience.

“Even if Djokovic didn’t win the Australian Open, his ability to emulate like him or play tennis to encourage those who want to be is what he opposes vaccination. It is a reasonable basis for the view that it may nurture the feelings of. “They added.

Fullbench also stated that under Article 133C of the Immigration Act, Minister Hawk “acknowledges Mr. Djokovic’s natural justice” or “does not demand” procedural justice.

“It’s not the fact that Mr. Djokovic is a risk to the health, security, or order of the Australian community. Rather, the Minister said his presence, [Section 133C of the Migration Act]”.

Hawk “has no obligation” to explain why, but the judge added.

“They were clearly carefully drafted … there was a clear interrelationship between all parts of the minister’s reason,” they wrote.

Novak Djokovic welcomes home 1
Novak Djokovic is preparing to take a seat on a plane to Belgrade in Dubai, United Arab Emirates on January 17, 2022. (Darko Bandic / AP Photo)

According to court documents, the Immigration Minister acknowledged Djokovic as a “good person” who refused to violate Australian law and supported him to stay in Australia.

But Mr. Hawk said he did not accept that Djokovic’s dismissal “looked like a politically motivated decision-making or would cast doubt on Australia’s border security principles and policies.” ..

Many legal experts have criticized Djokovic’s visa cancellation, and Liberty Victoria’s President Michael Stanton calls the minister’s authority “like a god.”

Greg Barns SC, a spokesman for the Australian Lawyers Alliance on January 16, said: Freedom of thought. “

“This is a very low standard for excluding people from Australia, especially in situations where the authority to review or appeal a decision is very limited,” he added.

Nina Nguyen


Nina Nguyen is a Sydney-based Vietnamese reporter with a focus on Australian news. Contact her at [email protected]

Daniel Y. Ten