Thread: Djokovic

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.

Originally Posted by Tins

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 weren’t 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 can’t come here because they aren’t 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

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 101RRS

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....

Originally Posted by Bulletman

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 weren’t 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.

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

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.