The Age

Read the whole article.

As I said originally: one rule for some and another rule for others.

Mike Harding wrote:

---

The Age

Read the whole article.

As I said originally: one rule for some and another rule for others.

---

 Thanks for the link Mike H.

After reading the entire article I am buggered if I can see any of that, to quote our PM at times,  passing the *Pub Test* 

Peter_n_Margaret wrote:

It is a criminal offence to criticise a court judgement.

So  judge is above everyone else and cannot be held to account on anything he does.

They covered their arses haven't  they.

I had Astrazeneca first dose, could have had Pfizer. Had adverse tinnitus from Astrazeneca, still got it & it is getting a bit worse, but as tinnitus is not recognised as a side effect of Astrazeneca I can't get a different vaccine for the second dose. I got my doctor to put it in writing so I have a hard copy. So I am stuck on first dose until the system changes to allow a different second dose.

Mike Harding wrote:

---

The logic here is interesting:

The judge decided Djokovic had not received "procedural fairness" during his detention at the airport and so negated his arrest and released him into the community.

If I commit a murder but the police fail to afford me procedural fairness will all charges be dropped and I'll be free to go?

I can see that Djokovic may have a damages claim against the Commonwealth but I fail to see why that negates his attempt to enter this country illegally and then go on to spread covid in the community.

---

 Spot on

Corndoggy wrote:

---

Peter_n_Margaret wrote:

It is a criminal offence to criticise a court judgement.

So  judge is above everyone else and cannot be held to account on anything he does.

They covered their arses haven't  they.

-- Edited by Corndoggy on Tuesday 11th of January 2022 05:27:07 PM

---

 Where's DMaxer...I'm sure he's watching this thread...love to hear your opinion!

If the allegations made in this article are true, then Djokovic really is a scumbag:

https://www.bbc.com/news/59939122

The following statement is absurd.

Serbian Prime Minister offers guarantee Novak Djokovic will abide by Australian regulations if allowed to stay:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-12/serbia-prime-minister-ana-brnabic-novak-djokovic-australian-open/100751112

Can anyone imagine that statement in an Australian context? 

If anyone is deemed to have not complied with Aus visa conditions they are turned around and deported on the next plane out of the country.

This peanut is only a tennis player, he is no different to any other sportsperson from overseas who does not comply.
Novax is treating all Australians with contempt.
I can not see why the ABF and the AFP have not loaded his suitcase and his sorry lying ar$e onto the next plane back to Serbian or Spain or wherever he came from.

A commentator on Ch 9 brought up a good point that there may be an opportunity for tennis fans to disrupt the play with heckling etc which may cause major disruptions to Novaxs games if he is permitted to stay and play.

edit: added the last comment.

I listened to an interview on morning tv where they were talking to Matt Canavan who is a Qld senator.

As with almost all interviews with politicians he was going around and around the Djokovic situation having his 2 shillings each way.

One thing he said which I really dont know wether it made me laugh or cringe in embarrassment.

On commenting about the tennis player making a false declaration on his entry form, he said,

*Maybe it should be considered that English is his second language.*

Cmon now.really

BTW the court of public opinion as a social media poll indicates that 77% of Australians want him gone.

Whenarewethere wrote:

---

I had Astrazeneca first dose, could have had Pfizer. Had adverse tinnitus from Astrazeneca, still got it & it is getting a bit worse, but as tinnitus is not recognised as a side effect of Astrazeneca I can't get a different vaccine for the second dose. I got my doctor to put it in writing so I have a hard copy. So I am stuck on first dose until the system changes to allow a different second dose.

---

 Whoops!! I think you may be in the wrong topic.

Easily done.

Best have another glass of plonk before tea.  

Politicians have commissioned closed tender to report into the political advantages of stay or go.

Whenarewethere wrote:

---

Politicians have commissioned closed tender to report into the political advantages of stay or go.

---

Yep, I would believe that, its all about the votes

What a joke, bring on the next election

Ian

An interesting read - German newspaper:

Spiegel

Clarky 1 wrote:

---

I have just heard that Novax allegedly did not complete his visa entry form, it is being alleged that Tennis Australia filled out his visa form on which the lie has appeared.

---

 So is the name on the visa papers Tennis Australia or Novax Djokovic. The name on the papers is the one making an application and is their responsibility to ensure the true and correct information is given on that application when logged with border control. Trying to blame someone else for filling out the entry paperwork is just looking for another loophole to use. Thing is it is his paperwork, he should have made sure it was true and correct before logging it. But then if it was true a visa might not have been granted in the first place. Others have been sent packing for the excate same thing.  To be fair send Novax AND Tennis Australia packing. They can change their  name to Tennis Serbia

Just a brief return to hopefully assist a few of the forum members that seem totally confused by the proceedings and to also correct some of the ridiculous statements that have been  made.

I will be as brief as possible but I think the first thing to remember is that the issuing of visas to enter Australia is solely a Federal matter. State governments and tennis authorities can make their own rules once a person is inside Oz but the legality of enter is strictly Commonwealth. The next point is that visas are not issued provisionally, you have to meet all the requirements and then the visa is issued. It is a not a matter of issuing a visa and then telling someone that further information is required, it has to be furnished prior to the issue of the visa.

The next issue is that Border Force and the Commonwealth Government have information of all persons coming into the country by air. They know whether they are religious fanatics, criminals etc, this bloke is the face of anti vaxxers and yet they issued the visa. Why, you may well ask.

After he arrives he is the first to be taken from the plane and then this whole sorry fiasco commences. It beggars belief that a Commonwealth employee is about to deport the number one tennis player in the world, who has just been invited to play in the biggest event in Australia and one of the Grand Slam events. This decision would have had to go right up the chain, to at least the relevant minister if not further.

He is then given until 8.30am to provide information which is then altered to 7.40am and then his visa is cancelled. Why didn't they give him the day or more, he could have been detained pending him contacting his people or his consul. This is what happens in deportation cases, I know, I have run enough of them.

We then move on to the appeal. An injunction is sought and granted. Now this is not any big deal. There are duty judges on call 24/7 in all jurisdictions for injunctions, warrants et al. Cases are then listed usually that day for directions and depending on the urgency a hearing date is set.

I read the documents filed by each party as they are freely available on the Court website. Very interesting reading. When filing an appeal there are always a number of grounds being relied upon. In this case, the Government case collapsed at the first ground. This is where it gets really interesting as the Government through their lawyers concede he was not offered procedural fairness. Game over. His Honour then requests both parties to draft the appropriate order for his consideration. The lawyers from both sides then agree that the cancellation was invalid and that the Government pay Djokovic's legal costs.

At no time did the judge rule as to whether he should have been vaccinated, whether the permission was given or not, just on the one issue that he wasn't given procedural fairness. Procedural fairness is not some "technicality". It is a cornerstone of the legal process. The judge did not have to consider any issues nor rule on anything as the Government conceded their own error.

Now all this rot about if you are charged with murder and not offered procedural fairness then the charge is withdrawn, really. All that happens say if an admission is made because of a threat or evidence is obtained through an illegal search without a warrant, then that particular piece of evidence is deemed inadmissible and cannot be relied upon or given to a jury in evidence.

Thank God that in this country we have lawyers that don't stand by and have people with political agendas push people around and deprive them of their legal rights. This failed stunt has resulted in the taxpayer being a few hundred grand out of pocket, money that could have been used for the good of people, being handed to the lawyers instead. If you think the legal costs are pricey, remember this. The costs are per a scale, decided upon by the Courts and Govt administration, not by the lawyers.

We now have this tripe about the minister considering if he will still deport him. He will just file another appeal, the appeal will be heard in a few months time as the urgency has been lost, he will be somewhere else. They wont be game, they have already made us the laughing stock of the free world. I bet they are glad parliament is not sitting. Imagine the questions about who knew what and when.

As to criticising courts, of course you can. Lawyers can't, they do it through an appeal. The general public can issue their view on whatever they like as long as they are defaming people. Really leave Google alone for a while. There can be no criticism of this judge, he did what both the parties agreed to and made orders as requested by them both.

Anyway, there is my view. Hope you are all well and enjoying the life in these terrible times. See ya later.

-- Edited by DMaxer on Wednesday 12th of January 2022 01:00:28 PM

-- Edited by DMaxer on Wednesday 12th of January 2022 01:02:34 PM

You just couldn't resist, could you...? :)

Some "ancient" history:

Border security allowed all the passengers off the Ruby Princess in Sydney because security couldn't understand the difference between yes & no.

Federal Stuff-ups continue.

Corndoggy wrote:

---

Clarky 1 wrote:

---

I have just heard that Novax allegedly did not complete his visa entry form, it is being alleged that Tennis Australia filled out his visa form on which the lie has appeared.

---

 So is the name on the visa papers Tennis Australia or Novax Djokovic. The name on the papers is the one making an application and is their responsibility to ensure the true and correct information is given on that application when logged with border control. Trying to blame someone else for filling out the entry paperwork is just looking for another loophole to use. Thing is it is his paperwork, he should have made sure it was true and correct before logging it. But then if it was true a visa might not have been granted in the first place. Others have been sent packing for the excate same thing.  To be fair send Novax AND Tennis Australia packing. They can change their  name to Tennis Serbia

-- Edited by Corndoggy on Wednesday 12th of January 2022 12:42:12 PM

---

 Hi corndoggy,

No argument from me mate..

Hi DMaxer 

thank you for the detailed explanation.

in your explanation you said this

*We now have this tripe about the minister considering if he will still deport him. He will just file another appeal,*

I do wonder does this mean that an option for deportation is still available or will the end be another appeal. If another appeal is the case wouldnt it just be a waste of time and money.?

DMaxer wrote:

---

We now have this tripe about the minister considering if he will still deport him.

---

Why does the government's lawyer (barrister?) have a different opinion? He is quoted as saying that the Minister can still refuse him entry into this country. It seems that this "tripe" is not something that uninformed lay people have dreamed up.

DMaxer wrote:

---

Just a brief return to hopefully assist a few of the forum members that seem totally confused by the proceedings and to also correct some of the ridiculous statements that have been  made.

I will be as brief as possible but I think the first thing to remember is that the issuing of visas to enter Australia is solely a Federal matter. State governments and tennis authorities can make their own rules once a person is inside Oz but the legality of enter is strictly Commonwealth. The next point is that visas are not issued provisionally, you have to meet all the requirements and then the visa is issued. It is a not a matter of issuing a visa and then telling someone that further information is required, it has to be furnished prior to the issue of the visa.

The next issue is that Border Force and the Commonwealth Government have information of all persons coming into the country by air. They know whether they are religious fanatics, criminals etc, this bloke is the face of anti vaxxers and yet they issued the visa. Why, you may well ask.

After he arrives he is the first to be taken from the plane and then this whole sorry fiasco commences. It beggars belief that a Commonwealth employee is about to deport the number one tennis player in the world, who has just been invited to play in the biggest event in Australia and one of the Grand Slam events. This decision would have had to go right up the chain, to at least the relevant minister if not further.

He is then given until 8.30am to provide information which is then altered to 7.40am and then his visa is cancelled. Why didn't they give him the day or more, he could have been detained pending him contacting his people or his consul. This is what happens in deportation cases, I know, I have run enough of them.

We then move on to the appeal. An injunction is sought and granted. Now this is not any big deal. There are duty judges on call 24/7 in all jurisdictions for injunctions, warrants et al. Cases are then listed usually that day for directions and depending on the urgency a hearing date is set.

I read the documents filed by each party as they are freely available on the Court website. Very interesting reading. When filing an appeal there are always a number of grounds being relied upon. In this case, the Government case collapsed at the first ground. This is where it gets really interesting as the Government through their lawyers concede he was not offered procedural fairness. Game over. His Honour then requests both parties to draft the appropriate order for his consideration. The lawyers from both sides then agree that the cancellation was invalid and that the Government pay Djokovic's legal costs.

At no time did the judge rule as to whether he should have been vaccinated, whether the permission was given or not, just on the one issue that he wasn't given procedural fairness. Procedural fairness is not some "technicality". It is a cornerstone of the legal process. The judge did not have to consider any issues nor rule on anything as the Government conceded their own error.

Now all this rot about if you are charged with murder and not offered procedural fairness then the charge is withdrawn, really. All that happens say if an admission is made because of a threat or evidence is obtained through an illegal search without a warrant, then that particular piece of evidence is deemed inadmissible and cannot be relied upon or given to a jury in evidence.

Thank God that in this country we have lawyers that don't stand by and have people with political agendas push people around and deprive them of their legal rights. This failed stunt has resulted in the taxpayer being a few hundred grand out of pocket, money that could have been used for the good of people, being handed to the lawyers instead. If you think the legal costs are pricey, remember this. The costs are per a scale, decided upon by the Courts and Govt administration, not by the lawyers.

We now have this tripe about the minister considering if he will still deport him. He will just file another appeal, the appeal will be heard in a few months time as the urgency has been lost, he will be somewhere else. They wont be game, they have already made us the laughing stock of the free world. I bet they are glad parliament is not sitting. Imagine the questions about who knew what and when.

As to criticising courts, of course you can. Lawyers can't, they do it through an appeal. The general public can issue their view on whatever they like as long as they are defaming people. Really leave Google alone for a while. There can be no criticism of this judge, he did what both the parties agreed to and made orders as requested by them both.

Anyway, there is my view. Hope you are all well and enjoying the life in these terrible times. See ya later.

-- Edited by DMaxer on Wednesday 12th of January 2022 01:00:28 PM

-- Edited by DMaxer on Wednesday 12th of January 2022 01:02:34 PM

-- Edited by DMaxer on Wednesday 12th of January 2022 01:05:22 PM

A lot later.

Thanks for that DMaxer  ,looks like  you have read a few law books in your time .

Des and Jane wrote:

---

And now he is stating that the filling in of the form with the wrong information was HUMAN ERROR .


Tell that to all the people who try and smuggle food into the country and state to immigration on their arrival form that they have nothing in their bags.


If he gets away with this it will open a can of worms in the future.


Lets just pee him off and move on...cancel his visa.......this is costing the taxpayers enough money that could be spent on other things to benefit the community and not a loser like him.

Just to clarify, I have no interest in tennis at all, neither the players or anything associated with it (apart from this issue).


Is there anyway we can bombard the Minister with emails outlining our views on the matter, or even Border Security ??

---