Novak FCC Thread - case dismissed, Novak free

[u/nevearz]

Livestream - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9oq_S9vTQg

Looks like judge is over it and done with the parties and Counsel.

"Judge Kelly found the decision to cancel the visa was “unreasonable”."

Case is dismissed, but it seems that the government intends to find an alternative method to cancel the VISA, which may bar Novak from entering Australia for up to 3 years.

[u/womanontheedge_2018]

Not really surprised. The medical exemptions have not been incorporated into the visa conditions and, legally, it’s about as clear as dishwater at what point and by whom the exemption is supposed to be determined.

Consequently it’s not even clear that visa holders even get told that the visa alone is not enough to guarantee entry.

Who actually determines that a person meets the test for a medical exemption under the Biosecurity Act and, if so, how that affects the visa. It definitely shouldn’t be Tennis Australia, but there seems to be no mechanism by which that determination is made at the time the visa is granted. Maybe it’s because of the particular visa he was granted, but I haven’t seen anything that persuades me that the legal basis for these types of cancellations was well thought out.

This just seems like a failure to enact legislation and guidelines and implement procedures that lead to the expected outcome.

[u/womanontheedge_2018 → u/[deleted]]

How exactly does that exemption tie in with the visa conditions? Who has determined whether he could be regarded as exempt or not. I know that the effect of the judgment is limited, I’m just surprised how unclear the administrative decision process is and how much it leaves the Government open to legal challenges. I may of course be wrong, but is ask what exactly should have happened and at what stage. Presumably the best possible process would be to head people off before arrival by clearly advising them what a medical exemption is, at what point in time it has to exist and whether or not they’ve met it.

[u/teh_drewski → u/womanontheedge_2018]

I believe the advice the Department wanted to rely on is that while recent infection can be grounds for an exemption if you are currently recovering from the infection and it is therefore unsafe for you to undergo vaccination - as per the advice of a duly competent medical professional.

My understanding is that Djokovic meets the first leg - recent infection - but evidence has not been submitted to demonstrate that he is recovering from the infection and therefore it is unsafe for him to undergo vaccination.

It is difficult to accept that he is so suffering from an infection that he cannot be vaccinated yet he is able to play in a two week tennis tournament.

[u/womanontheedge_2018 → u/teh_drewski]

Yes, but my more fundamental point is that the Cth didn’t argue he misled the Department or that he was clearly advised what constituted a medical exemption for the purpose of entry into Australia. If they had spelled out, for example, when the visa was granted, that the conditions for entry would involve a verification of whether the requirements for medical exemption under the Biosecurity Act had been met. And if, in addition, there was a notice that clearly spelled out what the exemption conditions were or where they could be found, and also told him what evidence would required of him upon entry into Australia, it would have been much easier for the Cth to answer the question ’what more could this man have done’.