I’m just catching up now on the #Djokovic happenings from earlier today. Some quick thoughts below. This 🧵 is on where the legal proceedings are at & Immigration Minister Hawke’s cancellation decision. I’ll update or make another one on the parties’ arguments.
Here’s where we stand so far: The matter is now before the Federal Court. Djokovic’s legal team got their submissions in this morning. The Minister is supposed to respond by 10pm tonight - so not long to go.
There was a directions hearing this morning before a single judge, Justice O’Callaghan. The purpose of this was to figure out what happens next. The main hearing will be at 9.30 tomorrow (AEST). It’ll be heard by a full court of 3 judges.
This is an early win for Djokovic’s lawyers, who wanted a full court to hear the case. The Minister’s lawyers did not want the matter referred to a full court - they said doing so would affect appeal rights for the losing party, whoever that may be.
If the matter had ended up being heard by a single Federal Court judge, the losing party could have appealed up to a full court composed of 3 different Federal Court judges. Jumping straight to the full court basically means that one stage in the process gets skipped.
I don’t know why my thread got split in half when I posted 😂 but it continues here:
Also while we’re here I wanted to highlight some other accounts to check out.
@jeremy_gans has dug into Djokovic’s documents in some detail.
@DrNinaBoughey has a thread with some expert admin law analysis.
@karenlsweeney live-tweeted today’s hearing so keep a lookout tomorrow

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Sangeetha Pillai

Sangeetha Pillai Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @sangpillai

15 Jan
If the matter had ended up being heard by a single Federal Court judge, the losing party could have appealed up to a full court composed of 3 different Federal Court judges. Jumping straight to the full court basically means that one stage in the process gets skipped.
The losing party could still try to appeal to the High Court. But this isn’t a guaranteed right. The High Court is the final appeal court for all Australian courts, but it has discretion over which appeals it actually hears.
If whoever loses wants to take it all the way to the High Court they need to ‘seek special leave’ from that court. The High Court can then say yes or no.

But it’s not clear that an appeal would end up being practical for the losing party, with the Australian Open looming.
Read 48 tweets
14 Jan
Directions hearing (basically a quick hearing to work out what happens next) live before Judge Kelly (speedy!) Karen’s a professional court reporter and she’s breaking it down in simple terms. Stream and follow her if you’re interested 😊
For anyone watching, Djokovic’s lawyers are going through the Minister’s reasons now & arguing they are irrational. We can’t see them yet, but presumably they’ll be added to the (currently empty) court file in due course: comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P…
There’s been some discussion about whether the matter (currently before Judge Kelly in the Federal Circuit Court) will be transferred to the Federal Court. Djokovic’s lawyers don’t want that because of time. They want to file submissions early tomorrow w/govt response by 10pm
Read 13 tweets
14 Jan
Visa cancellation take 2! Australian Immigration Minister Alex Hawke has decided to cancel #Djokovic’s visa again. Hawke is cancelling the visa using personal powers granted to him under s 133C(3) of the Migration Act. You can find his statement here: minister.homeaffairs.gov.au/AlexHawke/Page…
S 133C(3) allows Hawke to cancel a visa if he is satisfied that a ground for cancelling it exists under s 116 of the Act, and he is also satisfied that cancellation would be in the public interest.
S 116 is the same ground that the original ABF officer at Tullamarine Airport drew on to cancel Djokovic’s visa.

As you may remember, the ABF officer’s decision to cancel was quashed by Judge Kelly in the Federal Circuit Court on Monday.
Read 27 tweets
9 Jan
I just wrote an opinion piece for @smh on tomorrow’s #djokovic case & some broader systemic questions. If you’d like to read it it’s here: smh.com.au/national/djoko…
I won’t be able to read & respond to all comments, but some note that ND isn’t a migrant. It slipped my mind when writing that it might not be clear to people that temporary entry & ‘migration’ both fall within immigration law & the same 1000+ page Act. Many common powers apply.
Broad visa cancellation powers can be used against people like Djokovic, people trying to migrate, and people who have lived here most of their lives on permanent residency visas. It is counterintuitive, I know! There’s room for systemic reform across all these areas, and others.
Read 4 tweets
6 Jan
It’s a super hard time just to try to exist, and if you aren’t saving your deepest sympathies for a crazy rich tennis star who has publicly opposed vaccination, well friends I very much get it.

But before you jump on the #NoVaxDjoCovid or #DjokovicOut bandwagons, consider… (🧵)
Two medical panels via a blind process administered by Tennis Australia and the Victorian govt granted Djokovic a vaccine exemption. This exemption allows him to play in the Australian Open; it had nothing to do with his visa. But the two things are being conflated *everywhere*.
Amongst those conflating the right to enter and the right to play is the PM, who a day before Djokovic’s visa was cancelled told the media that he was able to come because the Victorian Government had ‘provided him with an exemption to come to Australia’: bit.ly/34u59LN
Read 21 tweets
10 May 21
Federal court hearing on the legality of the India travel ban kicking off now, before Thawley J. If you’re interested you can watch for yourself here: secure.quickchannel.com/qc/create/main…
The plaintiff is Gary Newman - a 73 y.o. man who has been in Bangalore India since March 2020. He is in a vulnerable category and wants to return to Australia as soon as possible in the circumstances, but says he has been unable to do so.
Today the court will hear arguments about whether a fundamental common law right allowing citizens to enter Australia, or other factors, mean that the travel ban could not be made under the Biosecurity Act.
Read 84 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!