'He was opposed': Judges' reasoning in Novak Djokovic decision explained

The reasons why a trio of Federal Court judges unanimously sided against Novak Djokovic in his most recent court challenge have been published in the wake of the Serbian star's deportation from Australia.

Djokovic kicked off a two-week saga which overshadowed the lead-up to the Australian Open when he arrived in Melbourne earlier in January, without the proper documentation to enter the country.

SERIOUS: Australian Open boss' crucial denial after Novak Djokovic debacle

'OVER THE MOON': Maddison Inglis in stunning Australian Open career first

Initially believing he would be allowed to play after he was given exemptions from both Tennis Australia and the Victorian state government, Djokovic was detained by border officials upon his arrival, resulting in the world No.1 being sent to immigration detention for five days.

An initial legal challenge was successful in securing Djokovic's release from detention, however a second challenge following Immigration Minister Alex Hawke's decision to personally cancel the Serbian star's visa was unsuccessful.

Mr Hawke had cited the 'health' and 'good order' of the nation among his reasons for cancelling Djokovic's visa, with the government arguing in court that the 34-year-old's history of anti-vaccination statements and his indications that he would continue to resist being vaccinated against Covid-19 justified ordering his departure.

In reasoning made public on Thursday afternoon, documents showed the judges agreed with the argument that Djokovic's presence at the grand slam would encourage vaccination sentiment in Australia.

Right-wing groups opposed to vaccination and coronavirus rules have staged several unruly protests in major cities throughout Australia over the last 12 months.

“An iconic world tennis star may influence people of all ages, young or old, but perhaps especially the young and the impressionable, to emulate him,” the document reads.

“This is not fanciful; it does not need evidence. It is the recognition of human behaviour from a modest familiarity with human experience.

“Even if Mr Djokovic did not win the Australian Open, the capacity of his presence in Australia playing tennis to encourage those who would emulate or wish to be like him is a rational foundation for the view that he might foster anti-vaccination sentiment.”

Reasons for Novak Djokovic deportation explained in judges' decision

Additionally, the judges stated that it was clear to them that Djokovic had not been vaccinated, not was he planning to, before competing in the Australian Open.

Lawyers for Djokovic had argued against the Immigration Minister's suggestions that Djokovic had arrived at a firm anti-vaccination position.

In their judgement, the court accepted that a BBC article cited by the government from April 2020, in which Djokovic was quoted as being 'opposed to vaccination', in addition to later statements, showed they were not drawing an unreasonable conclusion.

“We reject the proposition that it was not open to the Minister to find or conclude that Mr Djokovic had a stance that was well-known on vaccination and that he was opposed to it,” the judgement read.

“It was not irrational for the Minister to be concerned that the asserted support of some anti-vaccination groups for Mr Djokovic’s apparent position on vaccination may encourage rallies and protests that may lead to heightened community transmission.”

The judges were also heavily critical of Djokovic's disregard for isolation rules, after he travelled to meet with a reporter and photographer despite knowing he had tested positive for Covid-19 in mid-December.

“There was evidence . . . that Mr Djokovic had recently disregarded reasonable public health measures overseas by attending activities unmasked while Covid-positive to his knowledge," the document read.

“It was open to infer that this, if emulated, may encourage an attitude of breach of public health regulations.”

In a statement of his own following the deportation order, Djokovic said he was 'disappointed' but that he would respect the court's decision.

Click here to sign up to our newsletter for all the latest and breaking stories from Australia and around the world.