The full quote from Kelly there:
In the waking hours of Thursday morning, at 4am a person is instructed to and complies with instruction to turn off his phone, is effectively incommunicado for the entire or vast majority of the period from midnight to 7:42am from when the cancellation is effected. [Djokovic] is putting to the delegate…â€™if you would let me have enough time so when Tennis Australia is awake, when my agent is awake and Iâ€™m able to communicate with them by telephone we can effectively take up the opportunity embodied in this invitation to provide you anything further you might wantâ€™.
‘What more could this man have done?’: Judge Kelly
And we are back.
Judge Kelly has noted that in his interview Djokovic said words to the effect of â€œif you let me talk to people I will try and get what you wantâ€.
Nicholas Wood replied that he was â€œdoing his level best to provide everythingâ€ he could and â€œdid indeed provide that evidence from medical practitioners, before he boarded the aircraftâ€.
Wood again argues it is â€œmanifestly incorrectâ€ that the biosecurity determination requires both a declaration of an exemption and evidence of the exemption – only the former is required, Djokovicâ€™s team argues.
Any conclusion that Djokovic breached the determination is â€œclearly erroneousâ€, Wood says.
Mr Djokovic did provide evidence both before boarding and upon arriving of the matter.
Djokovicâ€™s counsel, Nicholas Wood, has accused the Australian governmentâ€™s delegate of an â€œutter paucity of evidenceâ€ in the section of the notice in which they were required to explain why grounds to cancel the visa exist.
Wood said the description that â€œall and onlyâ€ earlier evidence set out above was the basis for the decision means that ANY problem in the earlier evidence can invalidate the ultimate decision.
Judge Anthony Kelly has noted that the ONLY ground the delegate relied on when deciding to cancel Djokovicâ€™s visa is that:â€the presence of its holder in Australia is or may be, or would or might be, a risk to: (i) the health, safety or good order of the Australian community or a segment of the Australian communityâ€.
Nicholas Wood argued this was â€œmore than a typoâ€ in the decision, but a â€œconfusing blend of two groundsâ€, including a separate ground that the applicant had not been immigration cleared.
He argued that the â€œonly expression of satisfactionâ€ of the test was a mash-up of two grounds so there â€œwasnâ€™t the requisite state of satisfaction to enliven the powerâ€ and the decision was invalid.
Kelly doubts that – he notes that all the grounds in section 116(1) are â€œdisjunctiveâ€, the delegate decides on one ground, or another, or another, not some combination of them.
The Federal Circuit Court has begun hearing Novak Djokovicâ€™s case seeking his Australian visa to be reinstated.
After a 45-minute delay in which the live stream was not operative, Iâ€™m now getting both audio and video of the hearing.
Judge Anthony Kelly is quizzing Djokovicâ€™s legal team about the notices given to him about the intention to cancel his visa, and asking them to go through the timeline of Djokovicâ€™s interview with Border Force. Djokovicâ€™s team is arguing the notices were pre-printed.
Itâ€™s absurd to think the delegate arrived at 4am and gave to the applicant a copy of part C before thereâ€™d been any interview.
Djokovicâ€™s lawyers replied that he received a notice of intention to cancel his visa at 3:55am. Judge Kelly warned him not to refer to this as a â€œNoicâ€ because he â€œhates acronymsâ€.