Court case may not end Djokovic saga as Home Affairs goes on the attack

In the document, they say past COVID-19 infections were removed as a vaccine contraindication in December, despite previous ATAGI documents cited by Djokovic’s legal team including it as a valid reason to defer immunisation against the virus for six months due to “acute major medical illness”.

The lawyers claim the evidence submitted by Djokovic stated he had tested positive for coronavirus on December 16, but there was no evidence to suggest the player had been acutely sick.

In his submission to the court, Djokovic stated he hadn’t had a fever or other symptoms for 72 hours before flying to Melbourne, which implied he had recovered and was now eligible to get vaccinated, the lawyers argued.

“The statement about deferral does not say that such a person has … ‘a contraindication to vaccination’. It says the person can defer the vaccination,” the document read.

“That’s different, which is no doubt why the document uses different language for different concepts.”


The lawyers rejected claims by Djokovic that he was denied fair process partly due to the nature of his interviews at Melbourne Airport where he says he was denied access to his legal team.

They argued the world No.1 “had nothing more to say” by the time he was allegedly pressured to continue with the interview with border officials at 6.14am and there was no evidence to suggest his lawyers could have done anything to intervene at the time.

They said Djokovic had plenty of time to provide the necessary information to officers and even though he had gotten off an international flight about midnight, he had travelled from Spain, where it was early afternoon to evening during the interrogation.

Home Affairs will argue the case should be dismissed with costs.

The Morning Edition newsletter is our guide to the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up here.

Source by [author_name]