When we look at the subject of judicial review of administrative action, Novak Djokovic’s recent court cases raise some very interesting–and extremely problematic–issues of a structural nature that go well beyond his case or vaccination status. The cases involved drama which entailed the automatic loss of his Australian Open Title; incarceration in a “hotel” (described by many as prison like); loss of his temporary visa; deportation, and finally, a ban from entry to Australia for the next three years.

This session briefly looks at the two cases he undertook. The first contested the manner of and circumstances surrounding his initial detention—more specifically, how the immigration service effectively denied him the ability to assemble a case in his own defense. Whilst that raises a series of legal questions, it also raises deeper questions about the culture at the immigration service which could engage in what amounted to boiler room tactics. Much is made in of the merits of judicial review being the improvement of administrative action. Will it have materially altered as a result of this and if not is justice probably being denied on an industrial scale?

The second case arises from the power, under Australian statute, of the Immigration Minister to use their discretion to revoke a visa if certain criteria have been met. These powers were described by one former Australian Immigration Minister in 2008 as “God like” and have come under heavy criticism from rights groups. Once again, there is a systemic issue at play here that arises from the nature of Australian law and its willingness to create the kind of setting that successive British Home Secretaries aspire to, namely a “hostile environment”.

Putting this aside, there is the narrower legal question of whether the minister in Djokovic’s case acted within his powers. We are in the midst of a pandemic; Australia has some of the toughest COVID related laws and longest lockdowns in the world. The perceived sight of an unvaccinated person being given red carpet treatment by Tennis Australia and the state government was galling to many citizens. For the government, it also represented a headache during an election year when its COVID competence has come under critical scrutiny. Being tough is a good look, but in this instance, it highlights fundamental flaws in Australian immigration law and practice with far deeper implications than the fate and earning power of one tennis celebrity.

If you are interested in coming to this event please follow this link.