The Djokovic v Minister for Home Affairs hearing begins in a few hours. Yesterday I tweeted the gist of the 35 page legal submissions from #djokovic legal team. Now follows the gist of the 13 page submission from legal team representing Minister for Home Affairs.
They dispute they made any error in determining, “previous infection with COVID is not considered a contraindication for a vaccine in Australia”.
With regard to ATAGI advice of being able to wait up@to six months after having Covid to get vaccinated, they say the advice also says you can get vaccinated once symptoms have cleared and Djokovic’s symptoms have cleared.
Regarding Djokovic’s desire to wait until after 8am to speak with Tennis Australia and legal team for more advice, they say he’d already spoken to legal team and Djokovic had nothing more to add. Mention of ‘filibuster’.
Regarding Djokovic’s claim that his representations (of having all correct documentation, following every demand asked in order to come here) we’re not considered, they were considered but not given much weight.
Page 11 provides a show stopper: “There is no such thing as an assurance of entry by a non-citizen into Australia…reflects the power and responsibility of the Commonwealth to determine who is entitled to enter…fundamental attributes to Australian sovereignty”.
Even though an email from Dept of Home Affairs said that Djokovic’s Australian Traveller Declaration indicated he met the requirements for quarantine free travel into Australia, it doesn’t mean the Minister or her delegate doesn’t have the power to interrogate the responses…
…or the evidence upon which they were based, and conclude that a ‘cancellation power was enlivened’.
Concluding remarks from Home Affairs submission:
#Djokovic’s application to have his visa cancellation revoked should be dismissed with costs.
#Djokovic’s application to have his visa cancellation revoked should be dismissed with costs.
If the court is minded to grant relief orders should be to quash the decision and costs only, no further orders such as “immediate release”.
If the court makes orders in Djokovic’s favour, it would be up to Home Affairs to administer the Act, and it could therefore make another visa cancellation order.
If the court makes additional orders to release the applicant…the court should point out that does not prevent the Minister for Home Affairs or any officer of the Commonwealth from exercising power to detain, and it does not prevent re-detention.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
