Novak Djokovic Won his first legal round against Australian authorities who wanted to deport him. However, No. 1 in world tennis faces a formidable challenge in the second round of Sunday to undertake what is called the divine power of the Immigration Minister on visa and public interest issues.
Djokovic won his court’s appeal this week against the border authorities’ decision to revoke his visa. He overcame procedural errors related to Australia’s misleading COVID-19 vaccination regulations.
Immigration Minister Alex Hawke intervened to cancel the visa again on Friday because Djokovic’s lawyer explained it as a radically different reason against Australian politics and law.
What is the power of the pastor?
Hawk has the personal authority to revoke Djokovic’s visa under Section 133C of the 1958 Immigration Act.
Hawk needed to be satisfied that Djokovic’s presence in Australia could or could be a risk to the health, security, or order of the Australian community.
The minister also had to be satisfied that ordering Djokovic’s deportation was in the public interest and was a term without a legal definition.
Unlike the decisions of government supporters, the rules of natural justice do not apply to ministerial decisions. This meant that the minister did not have to tell Djokovic that he was planning to deport.
Hawk may have secretly canceled Djokovic’s visa and informed a Serbian tennis star that he had to go a few days later. Had the Australian Border Forces detained Djokovic, they would have had to legally reveal that he did not have a visa.
Under Article 133F of the Act, Djokovic could request the Minister to overturn his decision, but the only viable option was to appeal in court.
How does the pastor use his power?
In the case of Djokovic, an Australian government lawyer warned that the judge plans to intervene on Monday when the visa is revived. The popularity of star athletes may have encouraged the government to even hand them over.
Djokovic’s lawyer provided evidence of why he was allowed to hold a visa and keep the Australian Open title in the days before the minister acted.
Hawk has the drastic discretion to define the public interest in canceling a visa, but he must also be thoughtful and detailed in his reasoning.
These decisions are not easy. According to Kian Bourne of Immigration Law, there is a case law that forces ministers to be actively involved in materials and decisions when exercising this authority personally.
He (Hawk) can’t say in one liner: Mr. Djokovic, your visa has been cancelled. He can’t let bureaucrats and officials write a decision for him, watch it for two minutes, and approve it, Bourne added.
How do you overturn the pastor’s decision?
The minister’s authority is so broad and discretionary that the reason for the appeal is potentially less than the decision of a civil servant to act under the minister’s authority. However, the court overturned the minister’s decision in the past.
The immigration minister’s authority is one of the broadest offered under Australian law, said Greg Barns, a lawyer who experienced the Visa case.
One of the criticisms of this particular power is that it is so widespread that it effectively allows the minister to play God in someone’s life.
Political considerations form part of the decision, as the concept of the public interest is so broad that it should not be done in theory, but it allows the minister to effectively take into account political considerations. That is inevitable, Burns added.
Political consideration is rising for the conservative coalition of Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who is scheduled to be elected by May at the latest.
Australia is one of the highest COVID-19 vaccination rates in the world, but the government is concerned about Djokovic’s popularity among those who oppose vaccination requirements and who are skeptical of vaccine efficacy. I am holding
Djokovic’s lawyers do not admit that these feelings are justified in denying sports star attempts at the record 21 Grand Slam titles.
Djokovic’s lawyer Nick Wood told the court on Friday that the minister is considering the possibility of exciting anti-vax sentiment only if he attends the Australian Open.
According to Wood, Hawk’s reason does not take into account the potential impact on these attitudes if Djokovic is forcibly eliminated.
According to Wood, the minister has taken no consideration of anti-vax sentiment or what it could actually affect public order. That obviously seems absurd.
(Only the headings and images in this report may have been recreated by Business Standard staff. The rest of the content is automatically generated from the syndicated feed.)
Novak Djokovic plans to fight deportation from Australia in court
https://www.business-standard.com/article/sports/how-novak-djokovic-plans-to-fight-deportation-from-australia-in-court-122011500345_1.html Novak Djokovic plans to fight deportation from Australia in court