Not as entertaining as 'Rumpole of the Bailey'

Government lawyer is doing really well in my opinion. The defence argued that Novak Djokovic was never asked about his vaccine stance so how could the minister know to make a decision. 

Government lawyer countered  that there are many sources to draw information from to form a reasonable conclusion, I.e as there no knowledge of a medical reason before 16 December, there has been plenty of time for Novak to be vaccinated, therefore it is reasonable to conclude that he is not vaccinated by choice.

Above how I understood response, also he went through other reasons. They have a table, where the source of information came from etc.

yup he is talking. unlike the previous lawyer who did not counter at all.

edit: lunch break. govt lawyer plans to talk as long as novak lawyer (who spoke for just under 2 hrs)

It shouldn't matter at all to me. It's a player in a sport I have no interest in, in another country, but I will be really, really annoyed if the covidiot wins.

Rikkitic:

Handle9:

It’s a YouTube link. Great.

Your time would have been better off figuring out the difference between division 1 and division 2.

Your sense of superiority gets a little grating at times. Can't you make a point without all the ego?

 

ezbee:

 

Not as entertaining as 'Rumpole of the Bailey'

 

 

 

you'll be pleased to know court is finished. judges are trying to make a decision today

also tennis australia just announced they are releasing the match schedule for tomorrow, soon.

the tournament is all about one person. imagine not knowing when you are playing tomorrow at 3pm the day before.

Handle9:

 

 

 

It’s a YouTube link. Great.

Your time would have been better off figuring out the difference between division 1 and division 2.

Maybe you should consider the very aggressive way you reply. That Youtube link you were so dismissive about is actually the official stream from the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_-BcBnNeLA

cshwone:

 

Handle9:

 

It’s a YouTube link. Great.

Your time would have been better off figuring out the difference between division 1 and division 2.

 

 

Maybe you should consider the very aggressive way you reply. That Youtube link you were so dismissive about is actually the official stream from the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_-BcBnNeLA

 

 

Kyanar:

 

 

 

In this instance, the decision to cancel his visa was made based on his stances and behaviour. For example, that he attended an interview in person with a journalist the day after supposedly being informed he had a positive COVID PCR test (by his own admission) despite that being an offence in his native Serbia was "strongly in favour of cancellation", given it demonstrates that ND is unlikely to follow Australia's COVID rules, and that the general public may take it as carte blanche endorsement to ignore the rules if Australia won't enforce them in such a high profile case.

 

I have seen news articles speculating that if he gets the decision overturned (I don't see how he can, but that's what courts are for I guess?) then the Minister may just exercise another power to cancel his visa on the basis of the false information. The government isn't currently arguing that position.

 

epr: I think the following is important from the Stuff article. Would he want to return anyway is the question. Also after all the kerfuffle he probably wouldn't get much in the way of compassion for compassionate grounds.

If Djokovic doesn’t successfully appeal the decision, the laws dictate he would be banned from being granted another visa for three years – however this can be waived on “compassionate grounds” if he applies for another visa.

Im just in so haven't read the rest of this tread or the news. My take is he will be deported but not banned for 3 years. The basis is he isnt an undesirable, a recidivist or a risk in the future. 

cshwone:

 

Maybe you should consider the very aggressive way you reply. That Youtube link you were so dismissive about is actually the official stream from the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_-BcBnNeLA

 

I'll say it less aggressively. The Federal Circuit and the Family Court aren't the same thing, though they are part of the same thing - the Federal Circuit judges are the original jurisdiction to hear cases related to migration law and general federal law, the Family Court judges hear cases related to divorce, child support, and the like. Unless Djokovic intended to divorce someone or try and rebuff a child support claim, he would not have appeared before the Family Court.

Family Court is Division 1. They can only hear Family Law cases. Federal Circuit is Division 2. Some judges can hear Family Law cases, but they are the only ones that can hear Migration Law or General Federal Law cases. This actually affects the appeals process too - all appeals of Division 1 orders are heard by a full bench (three judges) while all appeals of Division 2 are heard by a single judge unless the Chief Justice says otherwise.

In this instance, Judge Kelly of the Division 2 Federal Circuit determined that he did not have jurisdiction to hear the case, and referred it to a full bench of the Federal Courts. After this, the only appeal direction is to the High Courts (who are notoriously slow to pick up cases) - no appeal to the Federal Circuit or Federal Court is possible if Djokovic (or the Government) loses.

This is, for all intents and purposes, the endgame.

Rikkitic:

 

Handle9:

 

It’s a YouTube link. Great.

Your time would have been better off figuring out the difference between division 1 and division 2.

 

Your sense of superiority gets a little grating at times. Can't you make a point without all the ego?

 

 

 

I think he has a point, although him and I disagree a lot and dont get on it seems. This issue is about the law and not emotions. Whatever your poison, its about the law not emotion/IhateNovak etc  Ideally, he will get the same treatment as you and I, and IMO if thats what will play out, he will be gone. Ban for 12 months, plays next AUS Open

CruciasNZ:

 

I doubt he'll manage to convince the judges that he is of sufficiently good character. The steady trickle of lying and exposure events put bed to that argument. He lied about changing country, he lied about his exposure to COVID, he did photo shoots and interviews while positive and didn't inform those he was meeting. Then you can add on top of that the anti-vaccine stance and grand-standing he's done.

 

So yeah I'll be very surprised if they let him remain.

 

He is of good character, his life is an open book. Covid-wise, not so much