Center court in Melbourne: Novak Djokovic vs. Australia as justices weigh deportation

More than 85,000 tuned in online to watch the legal court battle Sunday morning, eager to see the latest twist in a two-week saga that has sparked protests, investigations and diplomatic rifts and has threatened to upend the Grand Slam event.

Djokovic was not visible during the remotely conducted proceedings. But minutes earlier, he was seen leaving the hotel where he has been detained and heading to his lawyers’ offices for the hearing.

Adding to the drama is the Australian immigration minister’s decision to put the unvaccinated player’s personal beliefs on trial, arguing that his past anti-vaccine statements, questionable pandemic-fighting behavior and huge platform as one of the world’s biggest sports stars mean his continued presence in the country might incite anti-vaccine sentiment and “civil unrest” Down Under.

That claim immediately came under fire from Djokovic’s attorneys on Sunday, who said the minister had unreasonably failed to consider what deporting the tennis star would do for civil unrest.

“It was just quite obvious that that in itself might be apt to generate anti-vax sentiment,” Nick Wood said.

Wood also argued that the government had relied on old and selectively used quotes from Djokovic to describe his position on vaccines. Djokovic had been playing tennis around the world — including in Australia — for the past year of the pandemic without inciting unrest, he continued. And the only evidence of a connection between Djokovic and anti-vaccine protests was the reaction to the government’s own decision to deport him.

Arguing for the immigration minister, Stephen Lloyd said Djokovic had done nothing to retract or change his stance, including in an Instagram statement last week, and that his continued unvaccinated status spoke volumes about his beliefs.

Lloyd also said the minister had considered the possibility of anti-vaccine advocates reacting to Djokovic’s deportation.

Two of the three justices, however, appeared concerned with whether the minister had fully weighed the potential outcome.

“One could see a situation where it was plain to anyone with common sense that canceling the visa would cause overwhelming public discord and risks of transmission through very large public gatherings,” Chief Justice James Allsop said.

After an hour break, Allsop suggested he had continued mulling the issue over lunch, saying that “one view” of the situation was that the minister did not “finely balance the weighing” of what would happen if he deported Djokovic compared with allowing him to stay and compete.

“The answer to that may be that he didn’t have to,” the chief justice said.

The unusual and expedited weekend hearing comes a day after Djokovic was detained for a second time by Australian authorities and placed back in the very same hotel he’d triumphantly left just five days earlier.

As Djokovic’s opponents spent Saturday morning preparing for their first matches, he spent it under guard, working with his attorneys for Sunday’s decisive showdown.

And as journalists scrambled around Melbourne in pursuit of a glimpse of Djokovic, the tennis world reacted with a mix of shock, anger, shrugs and schadenfreude to news of his detention.

“It’s very clear that Novak Djokovic is one of the best players [in] history,” said Nadal, who, like Djokovic, is hoping to make history by winning his 21st Grand Slam in Melbourne. “But there is no one player in history that’s more important than an event.”

“I feel it has taken away a little bit from the great tennis that’s been happening over this summer in Australia,” added Emma Raducanu, the reigning U.S. Open women’s champion.

But Australian Nick Kyrgios, who has clashed with Djokovic in the past, said authorities were “nitpicking” with the No. 1 men’s player.

“Either send him out early, or let him play,” Kyrgios told the Age, a Melbourne newspaper. “Now I feel it’s getting a bit embarrassing. I feel it’s not fair on him now. Preparing for a grand slam is hard enough.”

The saga began almost two weeks ago, when Djokovic — who has expressed opposition to coronavirus vaccines — posted on Instagram that he was “heading Down Under with an exemption permission.”

The news didn’t go down well in Australia, a highly vaccinated country that is in the midst of a severe spike in coronavirus infections. When he arrived at the Melbourne airport on Jan. 5, Australian Border Force officers decided his medical exemption was valid to play in the tournament but not to enter the country. They detained him for eight hours, canceled his visa, and then put him in the Park Hotel, where asylum seekers have complained about conditions.

Just as it appeared that Djokovic would be deported, a federal judge ruled that Border Force officials had mistreated Djokovic and ordered him released, setting off jubilant celebrations from the hundreds of supporters — Serbs, tennis fans and anti-vaccine advocates — who had gathered outside his hotel for four days.

But the government threatened to again cancel his visa, and Immigration Minister Alex Hawke followed through on Friday evening, reigniting the legal battle and setting off a flurry of rushed court hearings.

In a document outlining his reasons for canceling Djokovic’s visa, Hawke dropped the argument about the validity of the tennis player’s medical exemption, saying he didn’t even read the material Djokovic submitted regarding his recent coronavirus infection — the grounds for his exemption — because “I’m not medically trained.”

The minister also conceded for the sake of the hearing that Djokovic’s recent infection meant he posed a “negligible” risk of infecting others.

Instead, Hawke noted that Djokovic is “a high profile unvaccinated individual, who has indicated publicly that he is opposed to becoming vaccinated against covid-19.”

“I consider that Mr. Djokovic’s presence in Australia may pose a health risk to the Australian community, in that his presence in Australia may foster anti-vaccination sentiment” that would lead to more people getting covid and increased pressure on the hospital system, Hawke argued.

Hawke also pointed to Djokovic’s decision to hold an interview and photo shoot with a French newspaper in Serbia after testing positive last month. Djokovic has apologized for his conduct.

“Given Mr. Djokovic’s high profile status and position as a role model in the sporting or broader community, his ongoing presence in Australia may foster similar disregard for the precautionary requirements following receipt of a positive covid-19 test,” he wrote.

At a hearing on Friday night, however, Djokovic’s attorney called Hawke’s argument “patently irrational” because it only considered the impact of the tennis star remaining in Australia and not his deportation.

“The minister only considers the potential for exciting anti-vax sentiment in the event that [Djokovic] is present” in Australia, Nick Wood argued. “The minister gives no consideration whatsoever to what effect [deportation] may have on anti-vax sentiment and indeed on public order.”

Canceling Djokovic’s visa would lead to the “mandatory removal of this man of good standing who has a medical contraindication to a vaccine, who has complied with the law, who poses a negligible risk to others, being forced out of Australia,” Wood said.

Most polls, however, show the majority of Australians are against Djokovic being allowed to stay in the country.

One thing that did go Djokovic’s way Saturday was federal judge David O’Callaghan’s decision that Sunday’s hearing would be heard by a full court consisting of him and two other judges. Djokovic’s legal team had been hoping for a full court, which makes it harder for the losing side to appeal, because they don’t want to drag out proceedings or the tennis player’s detention.

But legal experts warn that the tennis player’s attorneys have much less room to knock down this visa cancellation than they did the first time around. Djokovic’s team has to to convince the judges that Hawke somehow erred when deciding that the Serbian might incite anti-vaccine sentiment.

Something that could work in their favor is that anti-vaccine sentiment isn’t hard to find in Melbourne, where months of protests have occasionally turned violent.

On Saturday, as Djokovic was hunkered down with his attorneys, several hundred people marched through the city’s streets with signs saying “My Body, My Choice” and “Hands Off Our Kids,” a reference to Australia recently making coronavirus vaccines available to children between the ages of 5 and 11.

Though a few people wore Serbian flags, the demonstration — which had been planned for at least a week, according to police and protesters — didn’t have much to do with Djokovic.

“This isn’t for Novak,” said Annette Davies, 53. “This is about vaccine mandates.”

The potential for more anti-vaccine protests was at the heart of the hearing on Sunday as Djokovic’s attorneys argued the immigration minister hadn’t properly consider the unrest that could follow the tennis player’s deportation.

After more than four hours of arguments, however, there was little hint as to which way the justices were leaning. Allsop adjourned the hearing, saying he hoped to deliver a decision by Sunday evening.

The Australian Open couldn’t wait that long. On Sunday afternoon, the tournament released its schedule. Set to play on opening night on the main court was Novak Djokovic.