Australian Federal Court reveals why Djokovic was deported

Photo: Mell CHUN / AFP / Profimedia

The Federal Court of Australia has finally published the reasons why Novak Djokovic's appeal against the canceling of his visa was rejected, after which the Serbian tennis player was deported from that country!

Recommended

At the second trial, Djokovic only found out the final decision made by the three-member panel chaired by James Allsop, who then said that he would explain in the coming days why Novak was banned from staying in the country and playing at the Australian Open.

The Federal Court, meanwhile, announced the details of the case and explained in detail the final decision, which you can read HERE, while the main reason is that Djokovic was allegedly a risk to the health, while it is noted that he did not violate any Australian law.

The key point in the whole statement is "the (immigration) minister being satisfied of certain matters" -i.e., not that Djokovic actually poses a risk to the health or safety of the Australian community, instead the question was whether the minister was satisfied that his presence "is or may be, or might be, a risk to the health, safety or good order of the Australian community or a segment of it."

"It was plainly open to the minister to infer that Mr. Djokovic had chosen not to be vaccinated and he could conclude that the public would look at his position against vaccination. (...) An iconic world tennis star may influence people of all ages, young or old, but perhaps especially the young and the impressionable, to emulate him. (...) Further, there was evidence that Mr. Djokovic had recently disregarded reasonable public health measures overseas by attending activities unmasked while COVID positive to his knowledge."

"In addition, I consider that Mr. Djokovic's ongoing presence in Australia may lead to an increase in anti-vaccination sentiment generated in the Australian community, potentially leading to an increase in civil unrest of the kind previously experienced in Australia with rallies and protests which may themselves be a source of community transmission," the minister reasoned, it is stated, among other things, in the court's document.

"Considerable debate took place as to how to approach the minister's statement of reasons in this case. We do not consider that the resolution of that debate is necessary to reach the views we have. The minister was not obliged to give reasons, but he did so. They were evidently carefully drafted. The Court has no doubt that in respect of a matter of high public profile, care and consideration was given to the formulation of the reasons in the four days in which the minister took to consider the matter and finalize and deliver the reasons."

"Nevertheless, some weight is to be given to the fact that there was no obligation to give the reasons. Further, the stricture that the reasons should not be parsed and analyzed with a fine tooth comb with an eye to identification of error is always to be followed. There was a clear interrelationship among all parts of the minister's reasons. The themes of encouragement and emulation of a sporting hero and icon run through the reasons for satisfaction as to health and good order and the public interest. (...) Even if Mr. Djokovic did not win the Australian Open, the capacity of his presence in Australia playing tennis to encourage those who would emulate or wish to be like him is a rational foundation for the view that he might foster anti-vaccination sentiment."

It should be noted that in the meantime, reports appeared saying that Djokovic intends to sue the Government of Australia and ask for compensation of 3.8 million euros due to the poor treatment he received in that country.

(Telegraf.rs)