Novak Djokovic visa court hearing: Exact reasons why world No.1 was deported from Australia

Novak Djokovic was deported from Australia five days ago. Now the official reasons for his exit have been revealed. See them here.

A panel of Federal Court judges found it wasn’t “illogical” for Immigration Minister Alex Hawke to boot “iconic world tennis star” Novak Djokovic because he had well-known anti-vax views and could influence the young and impressionable.

In publishing its reasons for dismissing the world No.1s application against his visa cancellation, the court found it was open to the Minister to think Djokovic could put the community at risk.

Any other minister might not have made the same decision, the court ruled, but there was nothing unlawful about Mr Hawke’s controversial call under strong powers that don’t have to afford any procedural fairness.

Five days after Djokovic was deported from Australia, Chief Justice James Allsop revealed the reasons behind the decision.

Justice Allsop addressed the Federal Court briefly at 4.15pm today, stating he had the authority to publish the full reasons behind the decision to dismiss Djokovic’s bid against deportation.

The full reasons were immediately published on the Federal Court portal, and you can find them below.

Djokovic’s case was thrown out on Sunday and he was ordered to pay both his legal costs, and those of Mr Hawke.

Novak Djokovic was deported hours before the Australian Open started. Picture: AFP Images

WAS DJOKOVIC A RISK TO THE COMMUNITY?

The court stated it was not “irrational or illogical” for the Minister to find that Djokovic’s presence in Australia could have put the community at risk, even if others didn’t form that view.

It found that Parliamentary rules were clear that a Minister had the power to cancel a visa if he was “satisfied that presence of its holder in Australia may be a risk to the health or good order of the Australian community”.

“The Minister reached that state of satisfaction on grounds that cannot be said to be irrational or illogical or not based on relevant material.

“Whether or not others would have formed that state of satisfaction and the state of satisfaction as to the public interest is a consideration not to the point.”

Novak Djokovic at Melbourne Park before being deported.

CHIEF JUSTICE REJECTS KEY DJOKOVIC CALL

Chief Justice Allsop acknowledged the argument put by Djokovic’s team that there was support for him to stay in Australia, and that he was a “person of good standing” who made no attempt to contravene Australian laws.

The judges also noted the lawyers’ point that his deportation “would be likely to adversely affect Australia’s global reputation and call into question its border security principles and policies”.

But these points, that his visa cancellation wasn’t in the public interest, were rejected, noting that the Minister weighed up the “balance of things”.

Weighing up the unrest that deporting Djokovic would cause, versus the encouragement of anti-vaxx sentiments if he stayed, Chief Justice Allsop found anti-vaxxers wouldn’t be “influenced relevantly ... by his absence”.

DJOKOVIC VISA CALL WAS LAWFUL

The three judges found that another minister might not have made the same call, but at the end of the day, Mr Hawke’s decision to cancel Djokovic’s visa was lawful.

“Another person in the position of the Minister may have not cancelled Mr Djokovic’s visa. The Minister did,” the reasons stated.

“The complaints made in the proceeding do not found a conclusion that the satisfaction of the relevant factors and the exercise of discretion were reached and made unlawfully.

Novak Djokovic was the Australian Open’s defending champion. Picture: AFP Images

CONCLUSIONS ON DJOKOVIC’S VACCINATION STANCE

The court also ruled Immigration Minister Alex Hawke was open to concluding Djokovic had a well-known anti-vaccination stance.

The judgement states: “It was plainly open to the Minister to infer that Mr Djokovic had for over a year chosen not to be vaccinated since vaccines became available. That he had a reason not to have a vaccination at the time of the decision in January 2022, apparently having contracted Covid-19 on or about 16 December 2021, did not say anything as to the position for the many months from the availability of vaccines to December 2021. It was plainly open to the Minister to infer that Mr Djokovic had chosen not to be vaccinated because he was opposed to vaccination or did not wish to be vaccinated.”

The judges all agreed that while the minister did not ask Djokovic about his present day attitude toward vaccines, as was argued by his defence lawyers, the player did not volunteer any information when detained at the border.

Novak Djokovic stops for a selfie after flying home. Picture: Reuters

“He did not give evidence of any apparent change of attitude,” the judgement states.

“It was also open to the Minister to infer that the public would view his attitude as the media had portrayed: that he was unwilling to be vaccinated.

“An iconic world tennis star may influence people of all ages, young or old, but perhaps especially the young and the impressionable, to emulate him. This is not fanciful; it does not need evidence. It is the recognition of human behaviour from a modest familiarity with human experience. Even if Mr Djokovic did not win the Australian Open, the capacity of his presence in Australia playing tennis to encourage those who would emulate or wish to be like him is a rational foundation for the view that he might foster anti-vaccination sentiment.”

HAWKE’S DECISION HUNG ON THREE WORDS

Ultimately, the lawfulness of the Mr Hawke’s decision hung on the words ‘satisfied’, ‘may’ or ‘might’.

That the Minister was satisfied he was making the right call, that Djokovic’s presence in Australia may be a risk to the community, because it might be a danger to health, safety and good order.

And a full bench of Federal Court judges agreed - Mr Hawke could be satisfied, and there was a risk.

ALL DJOKER’S CLAIMS REJECTED

The court rejected all three grounds of complaint put by Djokovic’s team - that it wasn’t open to Mr Hawke to find he was anti-vax, that there was no evidence he would foster anti-vax sentiments, and that there was jurisdictional error.

Instead, the judges stated it was open to the Minister to find that Djokovic was unwilling to be vaccinated - and that he remains unjabbed, that his presence in Melbourne may lead to rallies and protests that could spread the virus and that there was a greater risk to the community by him staying than the ‘unrest’ that would be caused if he was deported.

The court confirmed that under the power held by Mr Hawke under section 133C of the Migration Act, there was “no requirement” for him to “afford Mr Djokovic natural justice”, or in other words, procedural fairness.