Novak vs State

[Shonewizard]

4 minutes ago, Zvezdinho said:

Kako sudije stignu da prate ovog Djokovicevog advokata , strana ova, paragraf ovaj, atachment ovaj i to ih stalno menja u 4-5s.

 

Realno, treba da sharuje screen, i da šalta PDF-ove, a ovo vijeće staraca samo da gleda i prati. 😛

[Dropkick Murphys]

1 minute ago, alcesta said:

Kako bi se majke ti brže završilo kad ovde ima nekoliko stotina strana samo o tome, ne verujem da su oni stigli da naštancuju toliko 

Ovde se svaki dan vrte iste priče, pa samo da izlistaju od jutros, imali bi iste ove članke bbc, izjave Đokovića i slično : D

 

Iskreno, baš mi je dosadno suđenje, jer je o svemu ovome naširoko razglabano ovde svakodnevno : ) 

[Instinkt]

Meni za sad deluje da se ovaj advokat popišava po ministru i ako ovako nastavi biće i on deportovan

Edited January 15, 2022 by Instinkt

[Predragdjape]

6 minutes ago, Devil In My Pants said:

Sto bi meni bio problem to? Meni je vise problem sto ne vidite probleme kod kuce. Bila bi epska nepravda da njega osude, a puste Koluviju, Volkam, Sarica i ostale..to vam je imaginaran problem. 

Da li si zaista uporedio Djokovica i njegov slucaj  sa gore navedenim i njihovim?  

[L' Imperatore]

Just now, Dropkick Murphys said:

Ovde se svaki dan vrte iste priče, pa samo da izlistaju od jutros, imali bi iste ove članke bbc, izjave Đokovića i slično : D

 

Iskreno, baš mi je dosadno suđenje, jer je o svemu ovome naširoko razglabano ovde svakodnevno : ) 

 

Pa odakle misliš da je advokat prikupio material 😄

[Devil In My Pants]

8 minutes ago, Predragdjape said:

Da li si zaista uporedio Djokovica i njegov slucaj  sa gore navedenim i njihovim?  

Zainteresovanost naroda. Po nas je ovo nebitno..sta god da bude odluka. Dok puste narkodilere, jasno je u kakvom supljaku od drzave zivis..prenose sudjenje Djokovicu, oce igrati ili ne na AO 😂

[dzoneee]

Just now, Predragdjape said:

Da li si zaista uporedio Djokovica i njegov slucaj  sa gore navedenim i njihovim?  

Mislim da nije njegova poenta ta, nego da javnost i ljude vise zanima ovaj slucaj nego slucajevi pomenutih preko kojih se olako prelazi a sve se pritom dogadja u nasem dvoristu.  

 

Drugim recima, odlicno bi bilo kad bi se isto tako veliki broj ljudi zainteresovao i za neke slucajeve koji su bitniji za drzavu u kojoj zivimo. 

 

Ja ga tako razumeo 

[double fault]

ajde brate ti lepo na politiku, opasno ovde smaras ..

nismo svi drzavljani srbije ....

Edited January 15, 2022 by vanjabarsa

[erwin]

  

Quote

Sangeetha Pillai @sangpillai

UPDATE: Alright! The case is underway. The Minister’s submissions have also just gone online. You can find them here: https://fedcourt.gov.au/services/access-to-files-and-transcripts/online-files/djokovic/filed-documents/sealed-Respondent-Submissions-15-01-2022.pdf. Unsurprisingly, they say that all three of Djokovic’s arguments are incorrect.

Djokovic’s 1st argument was that Hawke fell into ‘jurisdictional error’ when he cancelled the visa, bc it was ‘illogical, irrational or unreasonable’ for Hawke to conclude Djokovic’s presence would stoke anti-vax sentiment w/o considering whether cancellation would also do so

The Minister’s lawyers say Hawke *did* consider this (and that Djokovic can’t prove otherwise). They also say that even if he didn’t consider the counterargument this is not ‘illogical, irrational or unreasonable’. And even if they’re wrong on that too, it wasn’t material.

If Djokovic wants to argue that the Minister didn’t consider whether cancellation might stoke anti-vax sentiment, the ball is in his court to prove it.

This isn’t easy. And Hawke’s lawyers say that here it’s very hard because Hawke had no duty to provide Djokovic with reasons for cancellation at all. They say the court should be slow to infer that something wasn’t considered just because the reasons didn’t discuss it at length.

Hawke’s lawyers say that because Djokovic isn’t arguing that Hawke misunderstood the power under s 133C(3) his job is even harder. In other words, everyone agrees Hawke knew what he was meant to do, so it’s likely that he did it.

Hawke’s lawyers go on to say that the evidence suggests that he did, in fact, consider whether cancellation would itself stoke anti-vax sentiment. While he didn’t spell it out, they say it’s clear from the reasons that he considered the possible consequences of cancellation.

The Minister’s submission goes on to say that even if Hawke did not consider whether cancellation would stoke anti-vax sentiment, this would not be illogical, irrational or unreasonable.

The Minister submissions point out that that the bar for showing something is illogical, irrational or unreasonable is extremely high, and that even if it’s been met here, failure to consider whether cancellation would stoke anti-vax sentiment is not ‘material’.

‘It’s not material’ basically means something like: ‘even if Hawke didn’t consider these things, and he should have, it doesn’t really matter because it was never going to lead to a different outcome’.

Djokovic’s second argument was that it was not open to Hawke to find that Djokovic’s presence may foster anti-vax sentiment. Essentially this boils down to whether Hawke had evidence to reach this conclusion, and whether he reached the conclusion reasonably.

The Minister’s submissions point out that again the bar is high for Djokovic. There doesn’t need to be a ton of evidence, just some. The Minister’s submissions say it’s clear from Hawke’s reasons that there was some evidence…

…and that it’s not unreasonable to draw on that evidence to conclude that Djokovic’s presence ‘might’ stoke anti-vax sentiment. Again, Hawke has a pretty low threshold to get over to be on solid legal ground, which makes Djokovic’s job hard.

Djokovic’s final argument was that it wasn’t open to Hawke to make a finding that Djokovic had a ‘well-known stance on vaccination’ without asking his current views on vaccination. The Ministers subs once again say that this is a hard point for Djokovic to make.

The Minister’s subs point out that failing to make inquiries will only be jurisdictional error in ‘rare or exceptional cases’. Here, they say, Hawke made it clear that it wouldn’t have made a difference to his decision.

Hawke expressly said in his reasons that he was more concerned with the public perception of Djokovic’s views on vaccination than with what Djokovic’s current views actually are.

Moreover, the subs say it was reasonable to conclude that Djokovic is opposed to vaccination based on his previous public statements & the fact that he’s known to be unvaccinated. Hawke’s lawyers say it was thus open for him to infer that Djokovic had known anti-vaccination views

That’s all from the subs. If you would like to watch the hearing you can do so here: https://youtube.com/watch?v=YRxyGJGi6OE. And @karenlsweeney is live-tweeting again

https://twitter.com/sangpillai/status/1482488951579738112

[Čvarkov]

84k gleda trenutno, samo čekam da neko od sudija kaže lajkujte, šerujte ako ste za još ovakvih videa 

[DameTime]

Just now, Čvarkov said:

84k gleda trenutno, samo čekam da neko od sudija kaže lajkujte, šerujte ako ste za još ovakvih videa 

 

Sabskrajb!

[Predragdjape]

2 minutes ago, Devil In My Pants said:

Zainteresovanost naroda. Po nas je ovo nebitno..sta god da bude odluka. Dok puste narkodilere, jasno je u kakvom supljaku od drzave zivis..prenose sudjenje Djokovicu, oce igrati ili ne na AO 😂

Ako nastavimo otici cemo u piliticki deo a ovde je rec o Djokovicu. Jasno mi je sta kazes, ali nebitno je na ovoj temi. Da ne duzimo dalje.😀 

[Prijatelj Mitar]

3 minutes ago, Devil In My Pants said:

Zainteresovanost naroda. Po nas je ovo nebitno..sta god da bude odluka. Dok puste narkodilere, jasno je u kakvom supljaku od drzave zivis..prenose sudjenje Djokovicu, oce igrati ili ne na AO 😂

 

 

Ovde se barem postuju sudske instance. Koliko puta si od nasih politicara mogao da cujes - "Da pustimo nadlezne organe da rade svoj posao". U Australiji, kako vidimo ovih dana, te organe ocigledno niko ne sljivi.

[Zvezdinho]

1 minute ago, DameTIme said:

 

Sabskrajb!

 

I zvonce.

[Indig0]

Pravda je spora ali dostizna. 

Ne, pravda je smrtno dosadna.

 

[dzoneee]

Kako me nervira kad se necemu nadam a znam da nema od toga nista 

[Profesor]

9 minutes ago, dzoneee said:

Mislim da nije njegova poenta ta, nego da javnost i ljude vise zanima ovaj slucaj nego slucajevi pomenutih preko kojih se olako prelazi a sve se pritom dogadja u nasem dvoristu.  

 

Drugim recima, odlicno bi bilo kad bi se isto tako veliki broj ljudi zainteresovao i za neke slucajeve koji su bitniji za drzavu u kojoj zivimo. 

 

Ja ga tako razumeo 

 

Da Lebronu Dzejmsu zabrane da igra kosarku i pritvore ga, izazvalo bi vecu paznju od bilo kog narko dilera ili politickog skandala. Ljudi se vezuju za selebritije i nacionalne simbole i to je jednostavno tako.

Advokat Vud odlican. Sve je na Noletovoj strani. Sve osim vracanja vize je jadno političarenje.

[dzoneee]

Just now, Indig0 said:

Pravda je spora ali dostizna. 

Ne, pravda je smrtno dosadna.

 

Sad ti jasno zasto se kod nas retko bakcu sa tim 

[Tunji Awojobi]

Mediji su ipak pogrešno preneli da je ministar "priznao" da Novak ima sve validne dokaze i validan razlog za izuzetak. On je u stvari samo to "pretpostavio", što se kaže, "for the sake of argument", tako da dugujem izvinjenje@McLeod, odnosno, priznajem da nisam bio u pravu u vezi s tim. 

 

Inače, neubedljivo mi zvuči advokat večeras, ovako laički, mislim da su mu male šanse.

[Zvezdinho]

 

[Losmi17]

2 minutes ago, Tunji Awojobi said:

Mediji su ipak pogrešno preneli da je ministar "priznao" da Novak ima sve validne dokaze i validan razlog za izuzetak. On je u stvari samo to "pretpostavio", što se kaže, "for the sake of argument", tako da dugujem izvinjenje@McLeod, odnosno, priznajem da nisam bio u pravu u vezi s tim. 

 

Inače, neubedljivo mi zvuči advokat večeras, ovako laički, mislim da su mu male šanse.

Pa nabraja sve sto moze biti u korist Novaka.

Laicki je meni ovo jako zamorno.

Sad pitanje kakav utisak ostavlja na sudije.

Opet, kakav god da ostavlja, ona obimna dokumentacija je dovoljna, rekao bih 😂

[L' Imperatore]

Neko reče kladionica zna. Kvota na Zvereva porasla, na Novaka pala 😉

[dzoneee]

 

1 minute ago, Profesor said:

 

 

Advokat Vud odlican. Sve je na Noletovoj strani. Sve osim vracanja vize je jadno političarenje.

 

Just now, Tunji Awojobi said:

Inače, neubedljivo mi zvuči advokat večeras, ovako laički, mislim da su mu male šanse.

 

I sta je sad od ovoga? 

[Nicklord]

Just now, dzoneee said:

 

 

 

I sta je sad od ovoga? 

Koliko razumem lik priča li priča pa neko misli da je dobro a neko da je loše 😄

 

[dzoneee]

Ohladice im se supa izgleda