Novak Djokovic is a spoilt brat.

[onetrack]

That's what having $220M does for you - it gets you the best lawyer in the country who can throw doubt on cast-iron evidence. Of course, Border Force were obviously out to get Djokovic, so they can continue to control the entry gates.

[Jerry_Atrick]

OT - 220m certainly availed a legal challenge where lesser tennis players who were sent home did not think the cost would warrant the return..

 

But what was the cast iron evidence - except that he had entered legally, with a vaccination exemption? It may be the law is flawed in that area, but he met the legal requirements - that seems the cast iron evidence - whereas the Border Force, probably acting on a unilateral request rather than anything to do with the law, was found wanting in this case.

 

Apparently, Alex Hawke, the Foreign Minister, still has some power to use discretion in cancelling his visa. But, from an earlier ABC report today, it seemed it would revolve around whether Djokovic made any false delcarations in his application. Fair enough if that is the case, but it is starting to look like a witch hunt to me.

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

whereas the Border Force, probably acting on a unilateral request rather than anything to do with the law, was found wanting in this case.

I question the sense of conspiracy in the idea of "a unilateral request".  I believe that the decision was unilaterally made by the officer who is identified in the Record of Interview:

SUDHIR R (INTERVIEWER): Interview commenced at 00:21 hours on 6 of the January 2022 at Melbourne Airport. This is a record of interview with R Sudhir position number 60063579, an officer of the Department of Home Affairs,

 

The evidence provided to the Court of events clearly indicates that Sudhir on many occasions sought advice from superiors. These superiors would not have been at Ministerial level, but simply persons assumedly with the knowledge and experience to deal with the expected unusual cases that do crop up from time to time when enforcing laws. Often when I was functioning as a Constable, I had to seek the advice of my Sergeants or Inspectors to ensure that I got things done correctly. Clearly, in Novak's case, those superiors did not know what the law was.

 

Having read the submissions, I am appalled at the Gestapo-like behaviour of the officer/s in the treatment of Novak whilst in custody. When an official of the Government removes a person's freedom of movement, than that is legally an arrest, "the taking of a person into custody, usually by warrant from authority, to answer an alleged or suspected crime". Once "arrested" the person is in custody. I wonder, in light of the findings relating to custody records coming from the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, what records of his detention were made. If you get arrested and taken to a police station for being full of piss and bad manners, there are pages and pages of records made while you are in custody there.

 

First and foremost in this behaviour is the use of sleep deprivation. He was kept away from midnight to 5:00 am or thereabouts, after having endured a long haul flight. Secondly, he was denied the right to seek advice on how to respond to interrogation questions. The very idea that even if a legal adviser could have been contacted in the early hours of the morning, but would not be permitted to say anything during an interview is wrong in the extreme. An interviewee may receive advice during an interview. The legal advisor just can't answer the questions for the interviewee. Finally, Novak freely provided certified documentary evidence that, to the satisfaction of the relevant authorities, he had met all health requirements for entry.

 

Then after a short nap he was wakened and required to make legal decisions at 3.55 am.

INTERVIEWER: - - - I will give you like, you know, 20 minutes -- or whatever if you need more time you can request that -- and you need to provide us reasons why we shouldn’t cancel the visa.

 

The introduction of the Biodiversity Act is a bit of overkill. What we used to call the "Canvas and Tarpaulin Act" - it covers everything.

 

As a comment, note the name of the officer - Sudhir. Another escapee from a Mumbai call centre? We all know that they are unable to operate outside the confines of the script they have been given.

 

 

[Yenn]

This all boils down too our governments inability to write legislation that can be understood and mean what the original intent was. This is what has kept the lawyers busy for many years with refugees.

The intent of the covid requirements was I believe to stop unvaccinated people coming into Australia. There was a way in for those who could not be vaccinated for medical reasons, but they also included a way in for those who have had Covid within six months. Tyhey worded the legislation so that the requirement for being vaccinated or medically unable to be vaccinated did not apply.

The legislation is flawed unless there was in intention to let un vaccinated people who had the disease into the country aand I doubt this was the case, but it is what happened.

Those of us who fly can see the ridiculous way legislation is written. It is so bad that they have to give clear English guides so that we can understand. I suppose they must cover all eventualities when the write the legislation, but so far they are only clouding the water. Does the word Incompetent come to mind.

[Old Koreelah]

It’s been said that half the world’s lawyers are in America. Most of the other half must be here, making a good living finding loopholes in over-complex laws and regulations. 

I believe Iran, for all its faults, has a simpler system, where judges decide the merits of a case according to the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law.

[Marty_d]

7 hours ago, Yenn said:

Does the word Incompetent come to mind.

With this government?  Constantly.

[Cosmick]

Actually Novak hasn't gone off the handle so to speak but as for his Bludging Parents............. FFS.

 

Edited January 11, 2022 by Cosmick

[Jerry_Atrick]

3 hours ago, Old Koreelah said:

It’s been said that half the world’s lawyers are in America. Most of the other half must be here, making a good living finding loopholes in over-complex laws and regulations. 

I believe Iran, for all its faults, has a simpler system, where judges decide the merits of a case according to the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law.

Yes, this is also the case for what is termed Civil, Roman, or Napoleonic law.. in which the code is more a set of guiding principles than trying to be very precise and juries don't feature. However, lawyers do, but rather than being a referee of proceedings and assessor of the law, but otherwise leave it up to the lawyers, the judges control proceedings, ask questions in the same way lawyers do in common law systems, and are also the decider of fact as well as application of the law.

 

It is very different to Common law systems (which, except for the state of Louisianna, which was a French colony, America derives its law from). There are advantages and disadvantageous of both systems. However, it is the politicisation of the law that makes it a lawyer-fest rather than the legal system itself. The benefit of the civil legal system is that it is somewhat insulated from press pressure, but there have been examples where the government have changed the law which has not been for the benefit of justice, too.

 

Ultimately, the access to justice for the masses is within the gift of the government., They can break down the barriers, streamline to process massively while justice will not only be done, but will be seen to be done. But what is the overwhelming profession of MPs (or was)? And what benefit would they see in that?

[red750]

With regard to lying on his visa application, the question should be, "what would happen if this was Bill Bloggs or Tran Nguyen? Would they be granted a visa?"

 

If the answer is "No', then neither should Djokovic. The decision should be made regardless of whose application it is. The fact that he is the worlds number one tennis player shouldn't enter into it. As his mother said in an intrview on TV, he's just a tennis player.

 

The question was, "Have you travelled within the past 14 days?" He replied "No." There are photos of him in Spain 5 days before he arrived. You don't "just forget" you travelled to another country. He lied. End of story.

[red750]

[facthunter]

According  to other information Tennis Australia filled some of that in in his behalf. It wasn't done when he arrived . These forms were filled in and filed some time back one would think. If you say HE was ASKED and he replied YES it looks much worse and if that was how it was publicised then there appears to be an intention to discredit him by so portraying it.. I have little doubt the is was a stunt to disadvantage Dan Andrews and a major International Sports Event for Victoria that made the unforgivable sin of electing a Labor gov't by a large Margin last election.. It's become 100% POLITICAL and with Sco Mo, what isn't? Nev .

[old man emu]

That form looks like it was filled out on a computer. If you filled it out by hand, the marks for teh answers to questions 1 & 2 would not be identical and neat. And the numerals for the length of stay are computer generated, not handwritten.

 

It's quite reasonable to believe that Novak didn't fill the form out himself. Probably done by one of his lackeys, or as suggested, a Tennis Australia lackey.

[spacesailor]

If he has been infected, ( herd immunity ) why would he & every Covid survive'r, need to have a COMPULSARY imunisation injection ! .

Positive Rat result ! , Don,t use the test all, then you will save $ 1,000 After being admitted to hospital.

Thinking ' outside the square ' .

spacesailor

[old man emu]

I wonder if positive tests this far into the pandemic are simply a sign that a person has previously had a bout of COVID and their body has created the immunity. What exactly does the test rely on for its results? I'm getting my booster jab this afternoon and never have come down with the dreaded lurgy, but would I come up positive on a RAT?

 

Well, the answer is, "No". The test is actually looking for the presence of the virus. Any substance that induces the immune system to produce antibodies against it is called an antigen. Any foreign invaders, such as pathogens (bacteria and viruses), chemicals, toxins, and pollens, can be antigens. So, while your body might have developed an immunological response during a prior contact with the virus, you could still be carrying around the virus as a result of a fresh contact. You might not suffer any effects from the fresh contact due to you previously developed immunity, but you could be a spreader of lots of individuals.

 

By the way, saying "RAT test" is just as incorrect as saying "ATM machine". You are repeating yourself, "Rapid Antigen Test test"

[red750]

Now he's getting into strife in Spain for possible illegal entry, and at home in Serbia for conducting the interview knowing he had tested positive. The story that keeps giving. And he's getting no support from other players at Melbourne Park.

[spacesailor]

It may pay him, in the long term, to RUN & have another try next year.

The alternative is getting Deported, then Not being able to return for Three years.

spacesailor

[red750]

[red750]

[willedoo]

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

By the way, saying "RAT test" is just as incorrect as saying "ATM machine". You are repeating yourself, "Rapid Antigen Test test"

Some expert on the radio was referring to them as a RA test which would be correct. It would be completely wrong if you thought it was called a RAT test and you did a RAT test test.

[facthunter]

I think the tide may be turning against our Serb champion. with the issues in Spain and Serbia.. ALL this comes out well after the first judgement though. It's NOT illegal to be an antivaxxer but various laws relating to it in any country ARE required to be complied with and is a matter for THEM.. Barnaby's saying those who have spoken to him reckon He should be vaccinated, which completely misses the issue as it's an opinion only and plenty of others have entered on exemptions. What serious person would ring Barnaby anyhow? Remember Johnny Depp's two dogs?  Nev

[Yenn]

In my opinion he is not wanted here. Either by letting others fill in his form or by doing it himself he has been as honest as Scott Morrison.

By mixing with people when he was supposedly Covid positive he has demonstrated that he has no regard for others and doesn't care about complying with the requirements.

Our government went off half cocked and cancelled his visa when they could have used the lies on the application, but didn't see it at the time. It looks as if Scumbag made it clear he wanted Djokovic out, but didn't really sort out how to do it.

If he is allowed to stay he is in reality thumbing his nose at Australia and will also make our border rules look weak. If he is deported he will cry foul and a load of his suppporters will scream blue murder, Either way our government is going to come out of it looking stupid, but that is how I see them anyway.

[old man emu]

There are two ways that a person can be forcibly removed from Australia: Deportation and Removal.

Deportation requires a specific deportation order made under section 206 of the Migration Act 1958 . It is used in relation to Australian permanent residents only.

 

Removal is an automatic process of those held in immigration detention and does not require any specific order to be made.

People who are removed are unlawful non-citizens. They do not have a valid visa to be in Australia, whether their valid visa had expired or was cancelled. You can avoid being removed by departing Australia voluntarily before being taken into immigration detention.

 

You can be removed from Australia if you are an unlawful non-citizen. This can happen if you entered Australia by misrepresentation. This includes entering with a passport or other travel document that was forged or obtained by false representation, or entering with a passenger card which contained false or misleading information;

 

So, once again the ever careful media has got the terminology wrong. Novak cannot be "deported" because he is not a permanent resident. He can only be removed as an unlawful non-citizen.

[facthunter]

What happens to him in that regard will depend on the political outcome(s).. There has been enough exemptions in the past to grant another one if there was a reason. Novak is probably more  at risk from being infected here as we are now well above equal to USA per capita. How would say 10 infected people make any significant difference any where but WA,  when the numbers are at around 50K per day. ?  A tennis player had nothing to do with the situation WE are now in.  Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

9 hours ago, facthunter said:

How would say 10 infected people make any significant difference any where but WA,  when the numbers are at around 50K per day. ?

And when there are 50K a day in a society where most can't get tested, what is the real number of infections?

 

To be honest, if the declaration in the form has not been truthful (I am not going to assert Novak lied - but let's assume the form was filled in without due care and diligence, rather than with malice), should he be allowed to stay. TBH, I am in two minds - for about a millisecond.. then I have to honestly answer, bugger the politics - what about the people and principle?

 

Given the gravity that has been accorded even the relatively mild variant of Omnicron, living under a rock would not shield anyone of the importance of either being vaccinated or if seeking an exemption, making sure the information is correct because of the potential ramification - perceived or actual. Therefore, even if Novak did not fill out the form, and, let's assume Tennis Australia did on his behalf, surely, Tennis Australia would have understood the gravity of stuffing it up, and surely Novak's management team would have, too, and made sure it was filled out correctly.

 

Since, COVID is public health enemy number 1, it really is incumbent  om Novak's entourage to make sure all is in order. Having said that, is it a material omission? From what I saw on teh form, the message of lying being an offence was in that area of the form as I recollect, so yeah - I would say the government intended at least that bit of the form to be very important (I am sure all of it is.. just second guessing his defence).

 

As it is, Hawke has cancelled his visa and I reckon in waiting so long has timed it to try and make it not worth Noak's time to appeal: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-14/novak-djokovic-visa-cancellation-decision-immigration-minister/100748386

 

[red750]

If you watch Border Security on TV, numerous persons are pulled up and dragged off to an interview room where their paperwork is gone over with a fine tooth comb. Many are sent back where they came from on the next plane. Would it be fair to have treated Djokovic differently?