The world’s top tennis player’s public health team says that he is not a threat to the public and remains fit for competition. Djokovic has been battling an illness since last year, with his doctors saying it was due to “excessive training.
Image
On Sunday morning, Novak Djokovic was besieged by cameras and other onlookers as he drove to his attorneys’ office for a remote court session. Credit… Getty Images/Diego Fedele
Despite his reluctance to get vaccinated against Covid-19, Novak Djokovic is suing the Australian government one final time in the hopes of saving his prospects of defending his Australian Open championship.
On Sunday, a panel of three judges heard arguments from Australian immigration authorities and Djokovic, the world’s top-ranked men’s tennis player and nine-time winner of the Australian Open men’s singles championship, in Djokovic’s last bid to remain in the nation.
The judges are debating whether the immigration minister, Alex Hawke, was within his powers to deny Djokovic’s visa for public health grounds, a major move in a twist-filled tale that began shortly after Djokovic’s jet arrived down in Melbourne on Jan. 5.
All international visitors to Australia must be vaccinated, however there are certain exceptions. After an airport interview concerning his medical exemption, immigration authorities revoked Djokovic’s visa, but it was restored by a court on procedural reasons before Hawke’s current bid to prevent Djokovic from remaining. Djokovic challenged once again.
Hawke revoked Djokovic’s visa, fearing that his presence in Australia might inflame anti-vaccine sentiment and cause “public turmoil.” Despite the fact that approximately 80% of Australia’s population is properly vaccinated, protests against vaccination requirements and pandemic restrictions have escalated in recent months, occasionally becoming violent.
As Djokovic drove out for the hearing, photographers and onlookers flocked around his vehicle. Credit… Shutterstock/EPA/Dave Hunt/EPA/EPA/EPA/EPA/EPA/EPA/EPA/
Djokovic’s lawyer, Nicholas Wood, said on Sunday that Hawke had failed to consider the consequences of deporting him when making that judgment.
If Djokovic’s visa was revoked despite Hawke’s recognition that he was a decent citizen, and he was “expelled from the country, barred from competing in the event, and harmed in his career,” Wood said, “it’s fairly evident that in and of itself could operate to build anti-vaccination sentiment.”
Hawke’s lawyer, Stephen Lloyd, claimed that although Hawke did not clearly declare in his reasoning that he contemplated the consequences of denying Djokovic’s visa, he had thought about them.
Given the high-profile nature of the issue, Hawke was “widely aware of the likelihood of responses no matter which way he chose,” Lloyd said, and it was “impossible” to assume he was uninformed of demonstrations after the original revocation of Djokovic’s visa.
He went on to say that Djokovic’s legal team would have to establish — but couldn’t — that Hawke neglected to consider the ramifications of revoking Djokovic’s visa. The burden of proof for the immigration minister, according to Lloyd, is not on him.
Wood contended that Hawke lacked sufficient evidence to conclude that Djokovic had voiced anti-vaccination beliefs, based on excerpts from a news item written before coronavirus vaccines were available.
Wood stated that Hawke lacked proof to claim that Djokovic’s mere presence in Australia may provoke disturbance. “Not only by allowing Mr. Djokovic play tennis,” he added, the government’s vaccination obligations and decision to reject Djokovic’s visa had sparked anti-vaccine sentiment and activity.
Because the vaccine had been available for almost a year, “someone who had not been vaccinated at this time was doing so by choice,” Lloyd said it was logical for Hawke to infer Djokovic was opposed to coronavirus vaccines.
Photographers gathered around a vehicle taking Djokovic from a hotel where he had been arrested to his lawyer’s office ahead of the Sunday session.
Despite resistance from a lawyer for Australia’s immigration minister, Justice David O’Callaghan allowed the panel on Saturday at the request of Djokovic’s counsel. The hearing cannot be appealed since it is held in front of a complete panel of judges.
At the commencement of the hearing on Sunday, Chief Justice James Allsop restated that ground rule. He said the decision to have the case heard by a full panel of judges was made because of the importance of the case — both to Djokovic personally and to the “very preservations of life and health of many members of the community and to the maintenance of Australia’s health system,” as Hawke had stated in his decision.
On Sunday, Novak Djokovic left a quarantine hotel in Melbourne to attend a hearing at his lawyer’s office. Credit… Shutterstock/EPA/James Ross/EPA/EPA/EPA/EPA/EPA/EPA/EPA/
The issue coincides with the opening of the Australian Open, a Grand Slam championship event that, together with the French Open, Wimbledon, and the US Open, is one of the most important tennis events of the year. Djokovic, the top seed in the men’s singles competition, was assigned a first-round match against Miomir Kecmanovic, a fellow Serbian, but the match schedule has yet to be confirmed due to Djokovic’s uncertain fitness.
Djokovic is aiming to break a tie with Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer for the most Grand Slam titles by winning his 10th Australian Open men’s singles title. Each of them has 20.
The date has been changed to January 15, 2022.
A lawyer representing Novak Djokovic who spoke at the hearing was mistaken in an earlier version of this story. Nicholas Wood, not Paul Holdenson, was the culprit.
