https://www.betfair.com/aboutUs/Sportsbook.Rules.And.Regulations/#tennis
Sorry, for taking so long editing the original. After posting it.
@Riemann is right - it’s judicial review.
The thing is, it’s not a “personal” discretionary power, like you or I might have in handling our affairs.
It’s the exercise of a statutory power, and the general principle under the common law is that there is no such thing as an unreviewable statutory power. As a matter of the rule of law, any time an official exercises a legal power, there must be some minimal power in the courts to review that decision.
The extent of the court’s power to review will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and in relation to the subject matter. Traditionally, courts give considerable deference to decisions as to who can be allowed into the country, and on what terms.
Court is in session, but with three Judges instead of just one.
Not sure what that comment really has to do with whether or not a single judge should hear the case; what does the law and precedent in Australia say?
Maybe I don’t understand Australian legal reasoning. The judges seem sympathetic to the position that if they don’t allow Djokovic to play his supporters will create a situation that endangers public safety. WTF kind of justification is that for any public policy?
Terrorism works.
We had on this very board someone saying that the US Open was wrong to disqualify Djokovic because the official he hit with the ball and the official that disqualified him were both getting death threats.
Bus that’s just someone on a message board not a member of the senior judiciary of a supposedly civilized country.
I’m not sure they are sympathetic to it at all. I think they are required to listen to it, and acknowledge it , since the Minotaur said that his presence would cause social unrest due to his vax stance. Tit-for-Tat is part of the ancient Dialectic theory that Western legal systems are based on
I’m referring to the judge interrupting the GOVERNMENT lawyer with this counterpoint. This was the judge saying this not Djokovic’s lawyer. The judge was repeating this point in response to the government’s claim that allowing him to stay would endanger public safety.
Court is adjourned while the judges confer. It’s 3:00 PM Sunday in Melbourne. Chief Justice said he hoped to have a decision today.
I don’t understand how the government of Australia can’t just toss him. He isn’t an Australian citizen and has no inherent right to enter the country.
Fuck him.
They’re trying to do exactly that. The minister of immigration wants him out. But for the second time, No-vax dragged this into the courts. I trust that, in the absence of clear evidence that the minister used his power inappropriately, the court will defer to his wishes. If the court overturns the minister’s express order, they better have a damned good reason.
Court is over; verdict soon.
A court hearing for tennis star Novak Djokovic’s appeal against deportation in Australia ended Sunday and a verdict was expected within hours.
Federal Court Chief Justice James Allsop said he and two fellow judges hoped to reach a verdict later Sunday.
His lawyer is apparently claiming that Djokovic isn’t anti-vax so allowing him into Australia does not provide support for not getting the vaccine nor encourage anti-vax demonstrations.
My point is I’ve no idea how he even has standing to do that.
According to our resident lawyer, it’s the principle of “judicial review”. I would think, however, that a court overturning a minister’s express order would require a really compelling reason. I’ve been following the arguments and I see no such compelling reason.
There’s a good answer to that by Northern_Piper in post #202
(Ninja’d)
It’s notable that when Djokovic’s lawyer made an issue about the ‘lack of evidence’, the Chief Justice said that the minister was entitled to use common sense and intuition.
The minister doesn’t have to prove anything, he only has to show that his decision was carefully considered and reasonable.
At another point, Djokovic’s lawyer complained that Djokovic had not been asked about his current views on vaccination. The government lawyer responded that his views were irrelevant. “There is no evidence before the court that the applicant could or would have put forward any useful information to the minister, had his views been sought.” He said it’s like Djokovic sponsoring commercial products. He’s associated in the public mind with anti-vax, and that’s all that matters.
I’ll be surprised if Djokovic succeeds in this case.
The Australian Open order of play has been released.
Djokovic is scheduled to play tomorrow night against Miomir Kecmanovic. If his visa is cancelled, he’ll be replaced by a ‘lucky loser’ who failed to qualify for the main draw.
But still no formal decision. It’s 5.11pm now in Melbourne, sure is dragging on, unless the judges are having an extra long lunch session. 
Yes, they’ve been deliberating for nearly two and a half hours now, which I find rather curious. I would have thought it was quite straightforward; it isn’t a question of what the “right” decision is, it’s a question of whether the minister acted with due consideration and within his authority, which ISTM he quite obviously did. It’s his prerogative to make the visa decision; the court doesn’t have to like it.
From CNN’s latest reporting – this could get messy …
What happens if Djokovic’s visa is reinstated? We can assume Djokovic would try to put his court battles behind him and attempt to win his 21st grand slam. That doesn’t mean the government will stand aside – they could choose to cancel it again on other grounds, experts say.
What happens if his visa is revoked? The option would remain open for Djokovic’s lawyers to take his case to a higher court, but experts say time wouldn’t be on his side, given the tournament is due to start in less than 24 hours.
Is there a potential for another twist? Experts say if Djokovic loses, the court could request the minister grants him a temporary bridging visa which would allow him to contest the Australian Open. The visa gives recipients certain work rights with conditions, and it could be enough to allow Djokovic to compete.