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 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | ... | 23

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#2846430 10-Jan-2022 21:52

Handle9:

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

Why? Everything I've said is 100% correct. You can't just argue ignorance if you make a false declaration, even the New Zealand Government wouldn't let you get away with that. The whole outcome was predicated on the fact that the Border Force failed to follow proper procedure. He didn't even win the case, the Government withdrew it because the lack of procedural fairness was a valid complaint, and it was pretty obvious the judge was not being impartial anyway.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2846482 10-Jan-2022 22:02

rugrat:

I don’t know why the Judge would seemed miffed about not getting advanced knowledge. It was in the governments submission

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

IIRC the issue was that both parties negotiated or worked with each other. Seemed like the "if you quash it, Minster will unquash it" Bear in mind, this isnt a person vs the Police and a Judge rules, its a person vs the Govt and the Judge while supporting Common Law and Statutes is a part of the justice system. Hence it seems Judge vs Govt rather than good vs evil, so to speak.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2846483 10-Jan-2022 22:02

Kyanar:

Handle9:

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

Why? Everything I've said is 100% correct. You can't just argue ignorance if you make a false declaration, even the New Zealand Government wouldn't let you get away with that. The whole outcome was predicated on the fact that the Border Force failed to follow proper procedure. He didn't even win the case, the Government withdrew it because the lack of procedural fairness was a valid complaint, and it was pretty obvious the judge was not being impartial anyway.

Making an incorrect statement, which you believe to be correct, is not a criminal offence. It does not fail any character test that would stand up before the courts.

If what you believed was the case he would be on a plane already.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2846486 10-Jan-2022 22:15

What is the issue with Covid safety now? He had his Visa uncancelled, but IIRC the issue of a previous Covid infection still stands, and with it, quarantine status, and it "seems" clear that that had to be symptomatic, and his activities indicate that wasn't the case. So, one would assume "you can stay but we still need Covid protocols to be met" MIQ or given the drama, self isolation, but it appears he's been released to the public?

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2846488 10-Jan-2022 22:18

tdgeek:

What is the issue with Covid safety now? He had his Visa uncancelled, but IIRC the issue of a previous Covid infection still stands, and with it, quarantine status, and it "seems" clear that that had to be symptomatic, and his activities indicate that wasn't the case. So, one would assume "you can stay but we still need Covid protocols to be met" MIQ or given the drama, self isolation, but it appears he's been released to the public?

Half of Australia have Omicron and the other half will have it within the next few weeks, what danger does he actually pose? Presumably, at some point he has been tested and returned a negative result. If he follows safety protocols...

If without all the fuss he could have played then he should play now I guess, unless he can't return a negative result.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#2846490 10-Jan-2022 22:26

Handle9:

Making an incorrect statement, which you believe to be correct, is not a criminal offence. It does not fail any character test that would stand up before the courts.

If what you believed was the case he would be on a plane already.

I've given the exact information provided to individuals who are filling out an ATD, and it's very clear that he does not meet the requirements to answer "Yes" to the question regarding whether he has a valid medical reason not to be vaccinated. It's that fact that caused him to be detained at the airport in the first place, and the original notice of intention to cancel being issued. There is no way he could argue that he genuinely believed what he claims.

As an aside, the offence provisions of the Biosecurity Determination don't carry a penalty high enough to meet the "brightline" threshold for immediate and automatic termination of a visa, so it would be up to the Department (or the Minister) to make a determination to cancel the visa - which is what happened. The whole mess was due to a failure to follow procedure.

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2846491 10-Jan-2022 22:31

networkn:

Half of Australia have Omicron and the other half will have it within the next few weeks, what danger does he actually pose? Presumably, at some point he has been tested and returned a negative result. If he follows safety protocols...

If without all the fuss he could have played then he should play now I guess, unless he can't return a negative result.

You're right. Right now though, the border rules are in place (previous Covid infection status) so until those rules are relaxed, they should be enforced. We can't really have a case like this being precedent to relax the rules, or a valid example that its ok to relax them. If he isnt under some form of isolation (in lieu of MIQ as pre covid with no symptoms is not valid) then the pre Covid rules are being ignored. Yes, the reality is that it probably doesnt matter, but until the Govt changes the rules they need to be applied. This case wasn't about that, but it could have been made, clarifying the pre Covid position. It doesn't appear to have settled that, so that issue is still outstanding. The case is about cancellation, thats sorted, but his entry based on Covid rules is still current

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2846492 10-Jan-2022 22:35

Apparently the Minister has until approx 11.15pm NZT to cancel his visa using his special powers. A time frame of 4 hours from the ruling. Strange. We will know tomorrow.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2846494 10-Jan-2022 22:38

Kyanar:

The Australia Travel Declaration requires you to declare that you're vaccinated, or have a valid exemption reason

He believed he did, that's the whole point of this case. He got it from TA who got it from State Govt, and you would feel they would be correct, following Fed Govt rules.

if his cancelled Visa was not following due process, then uncancel it, then send him back to MIQ if the exemption status was not valid. That last phrase is why Im scratching my head, its like the legal issues have ended the need to follow Covid safety protocols.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2846497 10-Jan-2022 22:48

Kyanar:
Handle9:

Making an incorrect statement, which you believe to be correct, is not a criminal offence. It does not fail any character test that would stand up before the courts.

If what you believed was the case he would be on a plane already.

I've given the exact information provided to individuals who are filling out an ATD, and it's very clear that he does not meet the requirements to answer "Yes" to the question regarding whether he has a valid medical reason not to be vaccinated. It's that fact that caused him to be detained at the airport in the first place, and the original notice of intention to cancel being issued. There is no way he could argue that he genuinely believed what he claims.

As an aside, the offence provisions of the Biosecurity Determination don't carry a penalty high enough to meet the "brightline" threshold for immediate and automatic termination of a visa, so it would be up to the Department (or the Minister) to make a determination to cancel the visa - which is what happened. The whole mess was due to a failure to follow procedure.

Of course he could genuinely believe that he met the threshold. He took expert advice and that led him to believe he met the criteria for an exemption. Whether or not that was correct is a different matter but once again incorrectly completely a document does not constitute giving a false declaration.

One is made with the intent to mislead, the other is not.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#2846498 10-Jan-2022 22:49

tdgeek:

He believed he did, that's the whole point of this case. He got it from TA who got it from State Govt, and you would feel they would be correct, following Fed Govt rules.

if his cancelled Visa was not following due process, then uncancel it, then send him back to MIQ if the exemption status was not valid. That last phrase is why Im scratching my head, its like the legal issues have ended the need to follow Covid safety protocols.

That's a fair statement, and I agree with you. However if they send him into quarantine again, he would miss the Open. He deliberately "tested positive to COVID-19" on the 16th December in Serbia, broke Serbian law by failing to isolate and attending functions on the 17th December, "tested negative to COVID-19" on the 22nd December, and then made sure that he left travel so late that there simply isn't 14 days from arrival to quarantine. It's all a little ridiculous.

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#2846499 10-Jan-2022 22:55

Handle9:

Of course he could genuinely believe that he met the threshold. He took expert advice and that led him to believe he met the criteria for an exemption. Whether or not that was correct is a different matter but once again incorrectly completely a document does not constitute giving a false declaration.

One is made with the intent to mislead, the other is not.

No, he couldn't genuinely believe that. When you fill in the form you are provided the definitions you need to know. Someone else telling you different does not absolve you of all responsibility to understand a declaration you are making - try that with the tax department some time and see how that gets you. Or try argue to a police officer that a driving instructor told you that rolling past a "STOP" sign is OK.

The State (Victoria) and the Professional Body (Tennis Australia) both employed medical panels who used blind assessments - their medical panels did not know whether the exemption being assessed was for someone in Serbia, United States, or Melbourne - all identifying data was stripped. They couldn't know that they were required to assess on Commonwealth Biosecurity measures as opposed to Tennis Australia's looser measures.

Tennis Australia equally ballsed (pun intended) this up though, because they were told six months ago that "past SARS-CoV-2 infection is not a medical contraindication, and does not meet the criteria for an exemption from being fully vaccinated".

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2846501 10-Jan-2022 23:05

Kyanar:

. However if they send him into quarantine again, he would miss the Open. He deliberately "tested positive to COVID-19" on the 16th December in Serbia, broke Serbian law by failing to isolate and attending functions on the 17th December, "tested negative to COVID-19" on the 22nd December, and then made sure that he left travel so late that there simply isn't 14 days from arrival to quarantine. It's all a little ridiculous.

He got here on the 6th, it starts on the 17th, thats 11 days. He can be drawn for day 2 thats 12 days. He can be given a bye (seen that before at Grand Slams) so that buys two more days as they play two days apart. Thats 14 days. Plus TA would fudge anything to get him there, so IMO it can be made to happen, probably.

I'll take your word on the rest of your post, but there are a lot of risk elements in that strategy, both for being public and infection risk. Maybe a bit of a stretch.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2846502 10-Jan-2022 23:09

Kyanar:
Handle9:

Of course he could genuinely believe that he met the threshold. He took expert advice and that led him to believe he met the criteria for an exemption. Whether or not that was correct is a different matter but once again incorrectly completely a document does not constitute giving a false declaration.

One is made with the intent to mislead, the other is not.

No, he couldn't genuinely believe that. When you fill in the form you are provided the definitions you need to know. Someone else telling you different does not absolve you of all responsibility to understand a declaration you are making - try that with the tax department some time and see how that gets you. Or try argue to a police officer that a driving instructor told you that rolling past a "STOP" sign is OK.

That defence works very well with the tax department. If you fill in a tax return and they assess you for a different amount of tax to that which you calculated you don’t get charged with tax evasion, you just get assessed the amount of tax you are due. If you got charged with tax evasion you’d win every time.

Intent is at the crux of dishonesty offences. Whether or not he was eligible for a visa is differently from a false declaration.

The fact is you don’t know what he believed and neither do I. It would be very easy to demonstrate in court, using the reasonable person test, that Djokovic believed he was eligible for a visa. Whether or not he was eligible is a different question.

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2846519 11-Jan-2022 06:43

Basically if the govt doesn't deport him then there is no reason not to let unvaccinated individuals into the country from this day forth.

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | ... | 23