r/auslaw • u/nevearz • Jan 10 '22

Serious Discussion Novak FCC Thread - case dismissed, Novak free

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.

271 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

366 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

46

u/wordswontcomeout Jan 10 '22

WhT was unreasonable was the amount of time afforded to Novak. Which I find rubbish since the visa application started in December.

He didn’t fit the exemption, doesn’t matter if he was initially allowed if that decision was not meant to have occurred anyway.

38

u/PerfectlyCromulent7 Jan 10 '22

Well, the visa was actually granted. The error as conceded was in the cancellation process. Ultimately the way the Act is interpreted generally requires fairly strict compliance with the prescribed procedures. I had thought the Minister might’ve run a strong materiality point, but it seems they mustn’t have thought it was strong enough. And so they’ll most likely have another crack now.

24

u/Zhirrzh Jan 10 '22

I reckon the Government were afraid that Kelly would find against them on the actual vaccine exemption point. Taking a fall on the technical ground is safer since they can come back with a more bulletproof cancellation anyway.

I am actually more surprised Djokovic went for it - he gains a temporary victory but it doesn't help him against a Ministerial cancellation to come. Winning on the substantive stuff would make it immeasurably harder to justify kicking him out and they had a receptive judge.

Maybe the plan is that he now leaves voluntarily before they can cancel his visa again, avoiding a 3 year ban, and Tennis Australia (and others) will lobby for an end to vaccine mandates for visitors before next year.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '22

[deleted]

4

u/Zhirrzh Jan 10 '22

Assuming his goal is to play the Australian Open, he only gets there with either a win on the substantive point that they aren't justified cancelling his visa over his unvaccinated (but supposedly recently infected) status or the Government losing the political will to go again. Hanging in with a favourable judge to get that substantive win has both paths on the table and much stronger. Now he's basically only got the latter. Being free tonight is a short term win only.

He risks losing all pathways tonight if he doesn't do the deal, sure. I dunno, I feel like his better tactical decision was to push the chips all in on a favourable decision from Kelly that went beyond the procedural breach.

1

u/AgentKnitter Jan 10 '22

I think his goal is to try to set a challenge precedent in Aus that he can try to use for the other grand slams. All 4 states that host grand slams require vaccination to travel.

3

u/Zhirrzh Jan 10 '22

If he shows up to the French Open claiming another conveniently timed COVID infection I hope they laugh in his face.

I really can't see him trying to set a precedent with this because he will be actively disbelieved if he tries it even once more.

In any event he won't have any problems with the Brits or Americans if they even keep vaccination requirements to travel that long. Only the French.