Judges retire to deliberate over whether Djokovic can stay in Australia.
Hawke’s lawyer, Stephen Lloyd, countered that while Hawke had not explicitly stated in his reasoning that he’d considered the effects of canceling Djokovic’s visa, he had indeed weighed the potential reactions.
“The minister was well aware of anti-vaccination groups, he was aware they idolized the applicant for his stance on vaccination, he was aware of the prospect of discord,” Lloyd said.
He said that even if Hawke had not considered the effect of a deportation, as Djokovic’s lawyers asserted, he would not have changed his decision to cancel the visa, because that was “an incremental drop of thought of what was already a very substantial pool of thinking.”
Lloyd said that Djokovic’s legal team needed to prove — but could not possibly prove — that Hawke had failed to consider the consequences of canceling Djokovic’s visa. Lloyd said the immigration minister did not have the burden of proving the opposite.
Djokovic’s legal team also contended that Hawke did not have enough evidence to assert that Djokovic had expressed anti-vaccination sentiments, saying he had relied on quotes cited in a news article that Djokovic had made before coronavirus vaccinations were available.
Hawke also could not prove 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.”
If Djokovic’s presence on the tennis court could stoke anti-vaccination sentiment, Wood added, there would have been anti-vaccination protests at previous tournaments where Djokovic played.