Novak Djokovic's entry to Australia rejected, tennis star to be flown out later today

Forums › Sports › Novak Djokovic's entry to Australia rejected, tennis star to be flown out later today

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ... | 23

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2846393 10-Jan-2022 19:51

tdgeek:
Batman:

visa cancellation overturned by judge but Minister informs judge she reserves the right to exercise ministerial power to cancel his visa (again)

Seems a power play about a problem that should not have happened, rather than about Covid or a tennis player.

As I mentioned above this was always political.

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2846395 10-Jan-2022 19:52

they've deported 2 people in the same circumstance ... so ... i wonder what happens next.

most likely what tdgeek says

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2846398 10-Jan-2022 20:02

Batman:

they've deported 2 people in the same circumstance ... so ... i wonder what happens next.

Was just wondering that. Were theirs based on exemption under the same circumstance? It would need to be exact for that to be a problem, but its all getting very murky.

What I dont get is the decision was about cancelling the Visa, so where is he at re MIQ? Does that mean as well as reversing the Visa cancellation he is now free as a previous infection is now "fine"?

JaseNZ

2576 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1489

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2846403 10-Jan-2022 20:36

Who has the absolute final say though, Can the ministers personal decision be final ??

Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding : Ice cream man , Ice cream man

Beccara

1473 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 517

ID Verified

#2846406 10-Jan-2022 20:45

Kinda hard to keep up with the "facts" around this but it's sounding like overzealous boarder force didn't wait an extra hour after canceling his visa? Doesn't sound like the court said anything about his ability to get an exemption?

Most problems are the result of previous solutions...

All comment's I make are my own personal opinion and do not in any way, shape or form reflect the views of current or former employers unless specifically stated

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2846407 10-Jan-2022 20:46

as tdgeek said likely to be challenged in court as he won't want to have the 3 year ban associated. he will argue he was given false assurance by so and so

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2846411 10-Jan-2022 20:51

JaseNZ:
Who has the absolute final say though, Can the ministers personal decision be final ??

The courts have final say. If the government follows the law then the ministers decision is upheld. If they don’t follow the law then it gets overturned.

rugrat

3142 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 945

Lifetime subscriber

#2846414 10-Jan-2022 20:58

tdgeek:

Caught the last of the live feed. Judge Kelly seemed to release Djokovic within 30 minutes. Then the representative of the respondent, the Minister, advised that he will exercise his power to cancel the Visa. Judge seemed miffed that he isnt getting advance knowledge. Seems the Minister will get his way and exit Djokovic. No doubt another interim injunction will happen.

I don’t know why the Judge would seemed miffed about not getting advanced knowledge. It was in the governments submission “Significantly, the government's submission also said it retains the right to keep Djokovic detained even if he wins Monday's case.”

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/australias-cruel-new-novak-djokovic-threat-revealed/JKREMOSL33JIG5MTUTATM7IM44/

There’s more below this that indicates it could happen as well. If a minister over turns a court decision don’t think the court can go back and over turn that, if they could you’d end in a endless loop.

From watching on side lines he should be vaccinated, the dates he got a positive result seem to be a bit convenient, and after getting positive result he didn’t behave like he was positive.

If Judge didn’t expect a possibility of decision being over turned, in my view Judge is not very clued up.

Reanalyse

398 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 311

#2846415 10-Jan-2022 21:17

rugrat:

I don’t know why the Judge would seemed miffed about not getting advanced knowledge. It was in the governments submission “Significantly, the government's submission also said it retains the right to keep Djokovic detained even if he wins Monday's case.”

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/australias-cruel-new-novak-djokovic-threat-revealed/JKREMOSL33JIG5MTUTATM7IM44/

There’s more below this that indicates it could happen as well. If a minister over turns a court decision don’t think the court can go back and over turn that, if they could you’d end in a endless loop.

From watching on side lines he should be vaccinated, the dates he got a positive result seem to be a bit convenient, and after getting positive result he didn’t behave like he was positive.

If Judge didn’t expect a possibility of decision being over turned, in my view Judge is not very clued up.

If (and it seems a big if) he had Covid in December but went out and probably infected a lot of people then probably that would be grounds for failing the Australian Character test for entry. If he did not have Covid then he is lying to Australian Border officials and would fail the Australian Character test for entry. Either way looks like a path the Australian Goverment could take - Scomo does not seem the type to "be kind" and just accept the ruling ?

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#2846416 10-Jan-2022 21:21

There are several things that add together here. He had a valid visa (a 408 Temporary activity visa) which due to the type of visa it is, automatically grants the individual an exemption from travel restrictions. However, every person travelling to Australia on any visa is required to also complete an Australia Travel Declaration. This is a special additional declaration under the Biosecurity Act, which is similar to the standard passenger arrival card except asks only two very specific questions. Djokovic clearly did not read the requirements prior to making the declaration (meaning that he made a false statement in a Biosecurity declaration, which is a criminal offence subject to immediate cancellation of any visa in effect, followed by removal from the country).

Basically the long and short of it is this (yoinking what I wrote on Whirlpool).

The Australia Travel Declaration requires you to declare that you're vaccinated, or have a valid exemption reason, and links to this page for more information on the vaccination requirements, which links to this page for information on what constitutes proof of vaccination or exemption, which links to this page for information on what constitutes proof of exemption, which links to this page for what are valid reasons for exemption, which explicitly says under "what doesn't count as a medical exemption": previous infection with the same pathogen.

The issue here is that the government withdrew their case by agreement because he supposedly was not given procedural fairness (which of course the other people who've been in the Park Hotel for literally years without being able to leave their rooms would probably find quite offensive) and the judge was clearly hostile from the outset to the government's case. He should have been removed for blatant bias.

There is no right of appeal against a visa cancellation under ministerial discretionary powers, so not quite sure why the judge is so wound up saying any attempt to cancel Djokovic's visa would appear before him again (which likely would result in any attempt to bring another appeal against a cancellation having the first motion for the judge to recuse himself).

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2846424 10-Jan-2022 21:38

Kyanar:

There are several things that add together here. He had a valid visa (a 408 Temporary activity visa) which due to the type of visa it is, automatically grants the individual an exemption from travel restrictions. However, every person travelling to Australia on any visa is required to also complete an Australia Travel Declaration. This is a special additional declaration under the Biosecurity Act, which is similar to the standard passenger arrival card except asks only two very specific questions. Djokovic clearly did not read the requirements prior to making the declaration (meaning that he made a false statement in a Biosecurity declaration, which is a criminal offence subject to immediate cancellation of any visa in effect, followed by removal from the country).

Basically the long and short of it is this (yoinking what I wrote on Whirlpool).

The Australia Travel Declaration requires you to declare that you're vaccinated, or have a valid exemption reason, and links to this page for more information on the vaccination requirements, which links to this page for information on what constitutes proof of vaccination or exemption, which links to this page for information on what constitutes proof of exemption, which links to this page for what are valid reasons for exemption, which explicitly says under "what doesn't count as a medical exemption": previous infection with the same pathogen.

The issue here is that the government withdrew their case by agreement because he supposedly was not given procedural fairness (which of course the other people who've been in the Park Hotel for literally years without being able to leave their rooms would probably find quite offensive) and the judge was clearly hostile from the outset to the government's case. He should have been removed for blatant bias.

There is no right of appeal against a visa cancellation under ministerial discretionary powers, so not quite sure why the judge is so wound up saying any attempt to cancel Djokovic's visa would appear before him again (which likely would result in any attempt to bring another appeal against a cancellation having the first motion for the judge to recuse himself).

If he had committed a criminal offence this would all be moot.

You are drawing a very long bow without any evidence.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#2846425 10-Jan-2022 21:39

Handle9:

If he had committed a criminal offence this would all be moot.

You are drawing a very long bow without any evidence.

I am drawing no bow. Those are facts.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2846427 10-Jan-2022 21:42

Kyanar:

Handle9:

If he had committed a criminal offence this would all be moot.

You are drawing a very long bow without any evidence.

I am drawing no bow. Those are facts.

Where is the evidence that he filled in an illegal declaration? Please share it.

Your supposition is not evidence.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#2846428 10-Jan-2022 21:46

Handle9:

Where is the evidence that he filled in an illegal declaration? Please share it.

Your supposition is not evidence.

Uh, that he's not vaccinated, and that he has no exemption that meets the Commonwealth entry criteria, and that he boarded a plane anyway claiming that the "letter from Home Affairs" (which is an automated result from the answers to the two questions regarding your vaccination or exemption status) said he could, meaning that the only way he could have gotten that outcome is if he provided incorrect information in the declaration. It is not a "supposition", it's evidenced by the timeline of events quite clearly.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2846429 10-Jan-2022 21:48

Kyanar:

Handle9:

Where is the evidence that he filled in an illegal declaration? Please share it.

Your supposition is not evidence.

Uh, that he's not vaccinated, and that he has no exemption that meets the Commonwealth entry criteria, and that he boarded a plane anyway claiming that the "letter from Home Affairs" (which is an automated result from the answers to the two questions regarding your vaccination or exemption status) said he could, meaning that the only way he could have gotten that outcome is if he provided incorrect information in the declaration. It is not a "supposition", it's evidenced by the timeline of events quite clearly.

It's good the Australian government relies on actual lawyers rather than the internet.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ... | 23