Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 85

Thread: Djokovic

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Hookturnistan, currently
    Posts
    10,312

    Djokovic

    Seems some were a little fast to judge. The appeal was successful, the cancelling of his visa deemed "unreasonable", and the Department has to pay all costs.

    Personally I don't care about a tennis player even a little, but I'm glad there was justice. Trial by social media is not how this country used to operate.
    ​JayTee

    Depositatum De Latrina

    2000 D2 TD5 Auto: Tins
    1994 D1 300TDi Manual: Dave
    1980 SIII Petrol Tray: Doris
    OKA #74, Ook!

    Nanocom, D2 TD5 only.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    17,881
    I have had a lot to do with Customs (now Border Force) over my working life and they are a joke. Someone decided within BF that they did not like Djokovic and pulled his visa. Now under the rules he should never have been granted a visa in the first place as he did not provide evidence of an exemption when the Visa was issued back in Nov. Circumstances later changed but Immigration did not require to see his exemption at the time.

    The whole process was a comedy of incompetence and the judge soon saw through BF and really it should have been Immigration doing this not BF.
    REMLR 243

    2007 Range Rover Sport TDV6
    1977 FC 101
    1973 Haflinger AP700
    1971 Jaguar V12 E-Type Series 3 Roadster
    1957 Series 1 88"
    1957 Series 1 88" Station Wagon

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Location
    Northern Territory
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by Tins View Post
    Seems some were a little fast to judge. The appeal was successful, the cancelling of his visa deemed "unreasonable", and the Department has to pay all costs.

    Personally I don't care about a tennis player even a little, but I'm glad there was justice. Trial by social media is not how this country used to operate.
    He should never have been allowed to get on the plane here, makes an absolute mockery of vax mandates and people who have lost their jobs because they werenít or refused to vax.

    In my eyes it just goes to show the rich and famous seem to come under different rules than the average joe.

    I work with a bloke whose family canít come here because they arenít vaxed but yet novax seems to be able too.

    I can only wonder now if the female player they deported under the same rule will now sue the Aussie tax payer for damages..

    Bulletman

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Hookturnistan, currently
    Posts
    10,312
    Everybody is entitled to their opinions, which is how it should be. However, it is the court system that decides, which is also how it should be, This time, the Court has decided it doesn't agree with social media. IMO, that is definitely how it should be. The court of public opinion is nothing short of a lynch mob.

    Whether he should have been granted a visa is for the authorities to fight over, but he complied with all of the Victorian requirements, And Vic has been the most militant of all the States. Djokovic was fine here. He had "had Covid in the last 6 months", had a PCR test to prove it. That got him an exemption here.

    I find it odd that the Feds have never once sought to override a State over anything Covid related until now.

    I don't want any more warnings so I'll shut up now, except to say, we have Courts for a reason, whether you agree with them or not. One day you'll need the system, so it's best not to break it.
    ​JayTee

    Depositatum De Latrina

    2000 D2 TD5 Auto: Tins
    1994 D1 300TDi Manual: Dave
    1980 SIII Petrol Tray: Doris
    OKA #74, Ook!

    Nanocom, D2 TD5 only.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    17,881
    The Court system did exactly what it should have done - assessed the evidence and made a decision - in my view the correct one for the circumstances. However the Joker should not have been given a visa in the first place as he did not meet requirements but then things changed and if he had applied for a Visa after he got Covid he would have been perfectly ok for it to be granted - the court considered whether after the Visa had been granted whether it should have been cancelled and on this aspect they got it right.
    REMLR 243

    2007 Range Rover Sport TDV6
    1977 FC 101
    1973 Haflinger AP700
    1971 Jaguar V12 E-Type Series 3 Roadster
    1957 Series 1 88"
    1957 Series 1 88" Station Wagon

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Hookturnistan, currently
    Posts
    10,312
    Quote Originally Posted by 101RRS View Post
    but then things changed and if he had applied for a Visa after he got Covid he would have been perfectly ok for it to be granted - the court considered whether after the Visa had been granted whether it should have been cancelled and on this aspect they got it right.
    Various Governments have been quite happy to alter laws retrospectively. So perhaps they have little grounds for complaint here. Kinda a reverse ab initio.

    IMO it's time they got their houses in order legally, and stop chasing cheap votes, ALL of them. Separation of Powers has worked here, unless the Minister intervenes. With an Election probably a few weeks away I'll bet he's a little nervous. So he should be.

    Darn, I was going to shut up....
    ​JayTee

    Depositatum De Latrina

    2000 D2 TD5 Auto: Tins
    1994 D1 300TDi Manual: Dave
    1980 SIII Petrol Tray: Doris
    OKA #74, Ook!

    Nanocom, D2 TD5 only.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,578
    Quote Originally Posted by Bulletman View Post
    He should never have been allowed to get on the plane here, makes an absolute mockery of vax mandates and people who have lost their jobs because they werenít or refused to vax.

    In my eyes it just goes to show the rich and famous seem to come under different rules than the average joe.

    ....
    Whilst I do agree, and I'm an ardent anti-anti vaxxer! .. there are rules within the system to allow exceptions.
    And as long as an 'impartial' referee has seen it this way(his exemption was allowable) .. I see nothing wrong with it.

    Still bad form from Djokovic tho .. as a person that many look up too .. he really should do the right thing and get vaxxed.

    Good to see the Federal Circuit 'beating up' the government here!
    Hope they keep it up.
    Cheers,
    Arthur.

    '99 D1 300Tdi Auto
    '03 D2 Td5 Auto

  8. #8
    3toes is offline Wizard Silver Subscriber
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Knaresborough North Yorkshire UK
    Posts
    1,358
    A visa had previously allowed the holder to arrive at immigration where the final say on ya or nay was made. It did not guarantee entry to the country. What is not being pointed out that this is potentially a change in the rules as the judge is saying anyone with a visa has right of entry and you cannot say no. This is a radical shift from what is in place around the world not just Australia

  9. #9
    JDNSW's Avatar
    JDNSW is offline RoverLord Silver Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Central West NSW
    Posts
    26,757
    Perhaps worth pointing out that the court decided that he was not allowed due process - it did not decide on whether he should have had the visa cancelled, simply that the process followed did not follow the law. Nothing to do with whether they should agree with social media or not.

    From what I have been able to find, the grounds for exemption do not hold water for the visa category, so he should have been simply refused entry - but allowed an opportunity to argue his case. His visa was cancelled at 0725 after he had been told he had until after start of business so he could talk to his lawyers.

    But there are two problems at least - the immigration rules refer to the Australian Immunisation Register definitions, but apparently do not use the same words to mean the same thing, and there is little doubt that Djokovic was deliberately gaming the system to avoid the clear and unequivocal intention of the entry requirement that incoming passengers be either vaccinated or medically unable to be vaccinated. Prior infection is not a replacement for vaccination and is only a temporary excuse to delay vaccination. And apparently is not available as a medical exemption for a 408 visa since it is an allowed delay, not an exemption.
    John

    JDNSW
    1986 110 County 3.9 diesel
    1970 2a 109 2.25 petrol

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    nr Woodford SEQld
    Posts
    698

    Djokovic

    Quote Originally Posted by JDNSW View Post
    Perhaps worth pointing out that the court decided that he was not allowed due process - it did not decide on whether he should have had the visa cancelled, simply that the process followed did not follow the law. Nothing to do with whether they should agree with social media or not.

    From what I have been able to find, the grounds for exemption do not hold water for the visa category, so he should have been simply refused entry - but allowed an opportunity to argue his case. His visa was cancelled at 0725 after he had been told he had until after start of business so he could talk to his lawyers.

    But there are two problems at least - the immigration rules refer to the Australian Immunisation Register definitions, but apparently do not use the same words to mean the same thing, and there is little doubt that Djokovic was deliberately gaming the system to avoid the clear and unequivocal intention of the entry requirement that incoming passengers be either vaccinated or medically unable to be vaccinated. Prior infection is not a replacement for vaccination and is only a temporary excuse to delay vaccination. And apparently is not available as a medical exemption for a 408 visa since it is an allowed delay, not an exemption.
    Exactly as I see it.
    Excellent summary.
    In addition, I think Tennis Aust and perhaps the Vic Govt were with him in gaming the system.

    Furthermore, how does he explain away the fact that while he is supposedly PCR positive and probably infectious, heís having photos taken cosying up maskless with a bunch of maskless kids.
    I wonder if the positive PCR test even came out of his nose, but maybe somebody elseís?
    Last edited by Pedro_The_Swift; 11th January 2022 at 07:50 AM.
    Ron

    2013 D4 SDV6 SE

Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search AULRO.com ONLY!
Search All the Web!