THE CASE AGAINST NOVAK

IMMIGRATION minister Alex Hawke produced a radically new argument in the legal case against Novak Djokovic ahead of this morning’s hearing into his potential deportation.

Hawke said his status as a high-profile vaccine sceptic would pose a risk to public health if he were allowed to compete at the Australian Open.

In doing so, the Australian government dropped its claim that Djokovic had erroneously been granted a medical exemption to enter the country without being vaccinated and admitted he had abided by the rules in his visa application.

Their key legal points:

Section 116 (1) of the Migration Act 1958 says a visa can be removed if ‘(e) the presence of its holder in Australia is or may be, or would or might be, a risk to ... (i) the health, safety or good order of the Australian community or a segment of [it]’. Documents submitted to the Melbourne court also cited

subsection 133C(3) of the act which says a visa can be removed if a minister ‘is satisfied that it would be in the public interest’.

The government justifies their position by saying that Djokovic’s presence in Australia could ‘increase anti-vaccination sentiment, leading to others refusing to become vaccinated or refusing to receive a booster’.

They point out that Djokovic has ‘indicated publically that he is opposed to the vaccine’ and shown ‘apparent disregard for the need to isolate’ when he attended an interview with the French newspaper L’Equipe the day after testing positive for Covid. The Serb is also quoted saying he ‘wouldn’t want to be forced by someone to take a vaccine’ to travel or compete in tournaments.