Melbourne (dpa) – Tennis star Novak Djokovic can hope for understanding from the responsible judge at the court hearing about his entry to Australia refused by the authorities.
Anthony Kelly interrupted the world number one attorneys on Monday and told himself what steps he understood Djokovic had taken before boarding the plane to Melbourne and after being stopped by officials. He concluded his comment by asking, “What more could this man have done?”
The 34-year-old Serb was refused entry to Australia on Wednesday evening (local time). From the point of view of the authorities, Djokovic was unable to present the necessary documents for a medical exemption in order to be able to enter the country without a corona vaccination. Since then, he has had to stay in a hotel for people obliged to leave the country. Judge Kelly ordered, according to the Australian media, that Djokovic may follow the hearing at a location chosen by his lawyers. The 20-time major winner is fighting to stay in Australia and defend his title at the Australian Open. The first Grand Slam tournament of the year starts on January 17th.
However, a decision by the court in favor of the Serbs does not guarantee that he will participate in the tournament. The government has already announced that it could withdraw Djokovic’s visa again, even if a judgment was made in his favor.
Djokovic is not vaccinated against the coronavirus. Australia has very strict rules in the fight against the pandemic and in principle only allows vaccinated people across the border without quarantine. Djokovic and his lawyers argue, however, with the exemption that was granted to him by an independent commission.
At the time of Judge Kelly’s comment, however, officials from the Australian Home Office had not yet made a statement. According to reports in the Australian media, attorney Christopher Tran announced before a lunch break that he could justify some older decisions as to why the refusal of entry was legal and not excessive.
Due to massive technical problems, the negotiation started half an hour late. Due to the great demand, the live stream could not be accessed several times for a long time and some parts of the negotiation were only understandable for a few or sometimes even no process observers. The proceedings take place via video conference, the lawyers involved and the judge are not in one room. How quickly the court will make a decision after hearing the arguments of both parties and whether this will still be the case on Monday was initially unclear.
.
ttn-10