Three Australian Federal Court judges on Thursday revealed their reasons for backing a government order to deport tennis star Novak Djokovic, explaining they did not consider the 바카라merits or wisdom of the decision". (More Tennis News)
The judges on Sunday unanimously endorsed Immigration Minister Alex Hawke바카라s decision to deport the 34-year-old Serb following an urgent court challenge on the eve of what was to be Djokovic바카라s first match in defense of his Australian Open title. Djokovic accepted the verdict and flew from Melbourne to the United Arab Emirates hours later.
Chief Justice James Allsop and Justices James Besanko and David O바카라Callaghan on Thursday released a 27-page explanation of why they rejected Djokovic바카라s challenge.
바카라The court does not consider the merits or wisdom of the decision,바카라 the judges said. 바카라The task of the court is to rule upon the lawfulness or legality of the decision.바카라
바카라Another person in the position of the minister may have not cancelled Mr. Djokovic바카라s visa. The minister did,바카라 they added.
What had happened?
Djokovic had his visa revoked at Melbourne바카라s airport on Jan. 6 hours after arriving because he wasn바카라t vaccinated against COVID-19. A judge later found that the border officer바카라s decision to cancel the visa was legally unreasonable and restored it.
But Hawke used his sweeping discretion under the Immigration Act to cancel the visa again on Friday on the broad ground of public interest.
Djokovic was a 바카라high profile unvaccinated individual바카라 whose presence in Melbourne 바카라may foster anti-vaccination sentiment바카라 and increase pressure on the health system, Hawke said in his 10-page decision to revoke the visa.
Hawke had rejected Djokovic바카라s arguments that his deportation would appear to be 바카라politically motivated decision-making바카라 that could jeopardize Australia바카라s role as host of the first Grand Slam of the year.
Many argue the government deported Djokovic in response to public anger that an unvaccinated athlete had been allowed into the country without undergoing quarantine, even as the omicron variant strains hospitals, home COVID-19 tests are in short supply and Australians바카라 relatives overseas are barred from visiting because authorities don바카라t recognize their types of vaccines.
The judges rejected Djokovic바카라s three grounds of appeal. The first was that the decision was illogical, irrational or unreasonable. The second was that the minister could not find that Djokovic바카라s presence in Australia may be a risk to health or good order. The third was that the minister could not find Djokovic had a well known stance opposed to vaccination.
바카라It was open to infer that it was perceived by the public that Mr. Djokovic was not in favor of vaccinations,바카라 the judges said.
Djokovic, who returned to Serbia, is in talks with lawyers about suing the Australian government for £3.2million ($4.4 million) for 바카라ill treatment", the London-based The Sun newspaper reported, citing an unnamed source close to his agent Edoardo Artladi.
John Karantzis, a partner in Australian firm Carbone Lawyers, said Djokovic could have a case.
바카라If he concentrates on the ... unreasonable actions he would allege towards him, and not on policy grounds, he may succeed,바카라 Karantzis told Seven Network television.
