Novak Djokovic is challenging the Australian government one last time in hopes of salvaging his chances to defend his Australian Open title despite his refusal to be vaccinated against Covid-19.
A panel of three judges on Sunday was hearing arguments from Australian immigration officials and Djokovic, the top-ranked men’s tennis player in the world and the winner of nine men’s singles titles at the Australian Open, in Djokovic’s final effort to stay in the country.
The judges — whose decision will be final — are weighing whether the immigration minister, Alex Hawke, was within his rights to revoke Djokovic’s visa for public health reasons, a significant maneuver in a twist-filled saga that escalated soon after Djokovic’s plane touched down in Melbourne on Jan. 5.
Australia requires all foreign visitors to be vaccinated, but grants exemptions in limited cases. Djokovic’s visa was canceled by immigration officials after an airport interview about his medical exemption, but it was reinstated by a judge on procedural grounds before the latest move by Hawke to keep Djokovic from staying. Again, Djokovic challenged.
Hawke canceled Djokovic’s visa out of concern that the tennis star’s presence in Australia could stoke anti-vaccine sentiment and lead to “civil unrest.” Rallies against vaccination mandates and pandemic restrictions in Australia have increased in recent months, sometimes turning violent, though nearly 80 percent of Australia’s population is fully vaccinated.
Djokovic’s lawyer, Nicholas Wood, argued on Sunday that Hawke, in making that decision, had failed to consider what effect deporting him could have.
If Djokovic had his visa canceled despite Hawke recognizing he was a man of good standing, and was “expelled from the country, precluded from playing in the tournament and impaired in his career, it’s quite obvious that in itself might act to generate anti-vaccination sentiment,” Wood said.
Hawke’s lawyer, Stephen Lloyd, said that while Hawke had not explicitly stated in his reasoning that he considered the effects of canceling Djokovic’s visa, he had indeed considered the potential reactions.
Hawke was “broadly aware of the possibility of reactions no matter which way he decided,” given the high profile nature of the case, Lloyd said, and it was “impossible” to imagine he was unaware of protests following the initial cancellation of Djokovic’s visa.
He added that Djokovic’s legal team needed to prove — but could not possibly prove — that Hawke failed to consider the consequences of canceling Djokovic’s visa. Lloyd said the immigration minister did not have the burden of proving the opposite.
Wood argued that Hawke did not have enough evidence to make a determination that Djokovic had expressed anti-vaccination sentiments, relying on quotes cited in a news article that Djokovic had made before coronavirus vaccinations were available.
Hawke also did not have evidence to say that Djokovic’s mere presence in Australia could cause unrest, Wood argued. Anti-vaccination sentiment and activism had been triggered by the government’s vaccination mandates and by its decision to cancel Djokovic’s visa, he said, “not simply by letting Mr. Djokovic play tennis.”
Lloyd said it was reasonable for Hawke to assume that Djokovic was opposed to coronavirus vaccinations because, over a year after the vaccine has been available, “someone who had by this time not been vaccinated was doing so by choice.”
Ahead of the Sunday hearing, photographers crowded around a car transporting Djokovic from a hotel where he had been detained to his lawyer’s office.
The panel was granted by Justice David O’Callaghan on Saturday at the request of Djokovic’s lawyers and in spite of opposition by a lawyer for Australia’s immigration minister. Because the hearing is before a full panel of judges, it cannot be appealed.
Judge James Allsop reiterated that ground rule at the start of the hearing Sunday. He said the decision was made to hear the matter before a full panel of judges because of the significance of the matter — to Djokovic personally, and because Hawke had said in his decision that it went to the heart of the “very preservations of life and health of many members of the community and to the maintenance of the health system of Australia.”
The dispute is running up against the start of the Australian Open, a Grand Slam championship event that is one of the biggest tournaments of the year in tennis along with the French Open, Wimbledon and the U.S. Open. Djokovic, the top seed in the men’s singles tournament, drew a first-round match for Monday against a fellow Serbian player, Miomir Kecmanovic, but the match schedule has not been finalized with Djokovic’s status in doubt.
In addition to chasing his 10th Australian Open men’s singles title, Djokovic is hoping to break a tie with Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer for the most Grand Slam championships. They each have 20.
An earlier version of this article misidentified a lawyer for Novak Djokovic who was speaking at the hearing. It was Nicholas Wood, not Paul Holdenson.