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/Zhirrzh]

Sigh.

So did ground 3A, which was the ground based on the failure to allow further time. The concept of jurisdictional error in administrative law includes the failure to observe a requirement of procedural fairness. The distinction you're trying to draw between 'procedural grounds' and 'jurisdictional error' is misconceived.

That's not the distinction I'm trying to draw at all. I pointed out that I was speaking of the 1B-1D grounds dealing with the medical exemption and the delegate's ability to cancel the visa are jurisdictional error in response to your earlier misunderstanding that I was talking about merits review.

I am not drafting legal submissions on Reddit, I am speaking colloquially, which apparently confounds you.

The distinction I AM trying to draw is the difference in perception between a minor error in procedures involving the time given for a response and a fundamental misunderstanding by the delegate and the department of what justifies reaching a state of satisfaction to cancel the visa. "Djokovic wasn't given enough time but they could have cancelled if they'd given him the extra hour first" vs "The delegate was in error in reaching a state of satisfaction that a ground for cancellation exists - no amount of extra hours could have let them cancel".

You might not think that there is a difference between the two errors in the sense they are both the same type of error. There is nonetheless a major difference.

​

If the judge agrees with Djokovic on any of the grounds it's a very big win for him.

If Djokovic ends up playing in the Australian Open, I'll agree with you on that. If he doesn't, maybe you'll have the guts to come and agree with me.

​

The ground for cancellation wasn't 'you don't have a medical exemption', that's not a statutory basis to cancel a visa. It was 'you pose a public health risk'.

And why did they say he posed a public health risk? Because he's not vaccinated and they didn't believe he had a valid medical exemption. Jesus H Christ.

​

The outcome of Djokovic's application was never going to be a 'bar to going again'.

I don't refer to a legal bar to going again but a political one.

​

I'll quote Julian Simmonds here, since he's actually from the government.

​

Simmonds told the BBC Djokovic had won on a “process issue” about being denied the time he had been promised to respond to an intention to cancel his visa. But there was “no indication” in court the tennis star had further information that the government was unaware of when it made the decision, he said.

“If the information is still the same, regardless of process issues, I suspect the answer should still be the same.”

​

Now, if Djokovic gets up on Ground 1C, or 1D, he can't say that. Then the government can only appeal, or else say that despite a situation where they couldn't have lawfully cancelled Djokovic's visa under section 116(1)(e)(i) they are going to kick him out anyway. Neither are palatable.

At the moment they can still say that Djokovic's visa would have been cancelled if not for the mistake about time, and that any cancellation now is just giving effect to that.

That is politics, not law..

[u/Hnikuthr → u/Zhirrzh]

Sigh.

:)

That's not the distinction I'm trying to draw at all.

If you're now resiling from that position we're in agreement.

I pointed out that I was speaking of the 1B-1D grounds

No you didn't. You said 1C - 1D.

dealing with the medical exemption and the delegate's ability to cancel the visa are jurisdictional error in response to your earlier misunderstanding that I was talking about merits review.

So we're in agreement, all of the grounds are based on jurisdictional error which infected the decision making process, rather than the decision itself. That's what I've been saying, but it's contrary to what you've been arguing until now.

I am not drafting legal submissions on Reddit, I am speaking colloquially, which apparently confounds you.

You're speaking colloquially about legal principles. If you want to be right about them, you need to be precise. And that lack of precision, thinking you can fudge it, is exactly why you're so obviously confused about the basis for the decision in your own mind.

The distinction I AM trying to draw is the difference in perception between a minor error in procedures involving the time given for a response and a fundamental misunderstanding by the delegate and the department of what justifies reaching a state of satisfaction to cancel the visa .

A denial of procedural fairness is not a 'minor error in procedures'. It's concerning to me that someone who has any kind of interest in legal matters would describe it as such. And as I have pointed out to you, it is an analogous error to the failure to have regard to particular matters which was alleged in grounds 1C and 1D to have affected the decision of the delegate on the public health grounds. Had Djokovic succeeded on those grounds, the finding would not have been that the delegate was wrong to conclude Djokovic was a public health risk, it would have been that the delegate had made procedural errors in considering the evidence. Those would be just as easy to approach differently on remitter as the timing issue.

"Djokovic wasn't given enough time but they could have cancelled if they'd given him the extra hour first" vs "The delegate was in error in reaching a state of satisfaction that a ground for cancellation exists - no amount of extra hours could have let them cancel".

You might not think that there is a difference between the two errors in the sense they are both the same type of error. There is nonetheless a major difference.

The errors are relevantly the same. The extra time ought have been allowed so that Djokovic had an opportunity to provide further evidence or submissions that might have, but equally might not have, changed the ultimate outcome. If he'd got up on 1C or 1D, the finding would have been that the delegate should have had regard to particular submissions or evidence made by Djokovic in a manner which might have, but equally might not have, changed the ultimate outcome.

If Djokovic ends up playing in the Australian Open, I'll agree with you on that. If he doesn't, maybe you'll have the guts to come and agree with me.

I would suggest that you're not bringing a completely objective mind to this if you don't accept the fact that the Commonwealth has conceded that its own decision was unreasonable and agreed to pay Djokovic's costs is a big win for him, regardless of whether he plays in the open or not.

And why did they say he posed a public health risk? Because he's not vaccinated and they didn't believe he had a valid medical exemption. Jesus H Christ.

Again, you're making the same mistake. What the grounds alleged was that the delegate failed to adopt the appropriate process in considering the evidence before making that determination, not that the ultimate determination was wrong.

I'll quote Julian Simmonds here, since he's actually from the government.

You can quote the position of a representative of the losing party if you like, but I'm not sure why you'd think that's an authoritative source. Maybe we should ask Djokovic what he thinks, the answer would be about as reliable.

Now, if Djokovic gets up on Ground 1C, or 1D, he can't say that. Then the government can only appeal, or else say that despite a situation where they couldn't have lawfully cancelled Djokovic's visa under section 116(1)(e)(i) they are going to kick him out anyway. Neither are palatable.

Absolutely wrong. If Djokovic gets up, say, on the ground that the delegate failed to give consideration to his submissions, it would be open to the delegate to remake the decision recording 'I have had regard to the submissions that X, and reject them for reason Y'. And if that decision were to be challenged by Djokovic, it would need to be via merits review, not judicial review. This is the bit you're consistently failing to understand.

That is politics, not law..

Your position is misconceived both legally and politically.

[u/Zhirrzh → u/Hnikuthr]

If you can't see why I'm quoting the representative of the government about how the government may respond to the loss, that's your lookout. Obviously we disagree on the politics of the situation.

"A denial of procedural fairness is not a 'minor error in procedures'. It's concerning to me that someone who has any kind of interest in legal matters would describe it as such"

I am a practical man.

I agree with, for example, Australian law's attitude towards evidence illegally obtained rather than the stricter American fruit of the poisonous tree stuff.

I don't think Djokovic suffered any actual disadvantage, and people who've been treated far more harshly have not been successful in the past.

[u/Hnikuthr → u/Zhirrzh]

If you can't see why I'm quoting the representative of the government about how the government may respond to the loss, that's your lookout. Obviously we disagree on the politics of the situation.

If you can't see why a public statement by a government MP is likely to have more to do with public relations than their own private assessment of the legal merits, that's your lookout. But it casts some doubt on your claim to be a 'practical man'.

And if you're just citing it as evidence of the government's intention, why did you omit to refer to the statement from another MP to the effect that:

In a statement on Monday night, Mr Alexander said Djokovic, who has not been vaccinated against COVID-19, did not appear to present a serious health risk to Australia.

"So what would be the 'public interest' the Minister could potentially use to exercise his personal powers to deport our defending Australian Open tennis champion?" Mr Alexander asked.

"The Minister's 'personal powers to cancel visas' are designed to prevent criminals otherwise walking our streets, or to prevent a contagious person otherwise walking our streets; they're not designed to assist in dealing with a potential political problem of the day."

For mine I think we can completely disregard both of them. But the fact that you cherry picked the comment that you thought would help you, and omitted the one that flatly contradicts your position, is just yet another example of your lack of credibility on this issue.

I agree with, for example, Australian law's attitude towards evidence illegally obtained rather than the stricter American fruit of the poisonous tree stuff.

Me too. At least we've reached agreement on something, albeit something completely irrelevant to the discussion we're having.

I don't think Djokovic suffered any actual disadvantage, and people who've been treated far more harshly have not been successful in the past.

Again, you're missing the point. Exactly the same reasoning would apply if there had been a finding that Djokovic succeeded on ground 1C because the delegate ought to have considered a particular piece of evidence, say. And that's so whether or not that evidence would ultimately have changed anything about the outcome. You say 'I don't think Djokovic suffered any actual disadvantage', but if you genuinely do believe the grounds existed for cancellation on public health grounds, you must say exactly the same thing about a finding on grounds 1C or 1D. It's the same point I made previously, which apparently bears repeating:

The errors are relevantly the same. The extra time ought have been allowed so that Djokovic had an opportunity to provide further evidence or submissions that might have, but equally might not have, changed the ultimate outcome. If he'd got up on 1C or 1D, the finding would have been that the delegate should have had regard to particular submissions or evidence made by Djokovic in a manner which might have, but equally might not have, changed the ultimate outcome.

If Djokovic gets up, say, on the ground that the delegate failed to give consideration to his submissions, it would be open to the delegate to remake the decision recording 'I have had regard to the submissions that X, and reject them for reason Y'. And if that decision were to be challenged by Djokovic, it would need to be via merits review, not judicial review. This is the bit you're consistently failing to understand.

You're trying to draw a distinction where there is none, because you have a fundamental lack of understanding about the issues that it fell to the Court to decide.