Novak Djokovic has been deported from Australia after losing visa battle in court
Judges dismissed his bid to have a government decision to cancel his visa overturned
The tennis star earlier said he was "extremely disappointed" but accepted the decision
Australian PM Scott Morrison welcomes ruling saying country committed to "strong borders"
Immigration Minister Alex Hawke cancelled Djokovic's visa on Friday, saying his presence in the country risked fanning anti-vaccine sentiment
Djokovic has not been vaccinated against Covid-19, which is a requirement for foreigners entering the country
Djokovic now faces a possible three-year ban on returning to Australia
Chief Justice Allsop says the court will adjourn to consider the legal arguments:
"We hope to be in a position to identify to parties later this afternoon what the course is we propose, and may well come back this afternoon or tomorrow morning to deal with matter in the best way we can," he says.
Barrister Stephen Lloyd has closed his submissions.
Djokovic's lawyers are raising a quick rebuttal to one of the points - arguing again that the minister hasn't got enough evidence to cancel the visa.
Lloyd, for the government, says Djokovic "has now become an icon for anti-vaccination groups".
"And what role will that have for someone of his status and significance being in Australia at a time when that [vaccination] is an issue," he tells the court.
He compares it to Djokovic almost endorsing a commercial product, arguing anti-vax groups benefit from the tennis player's "popularity and status".
"Rightly or wrongly he's perceived to endorse an anti-vaccination view. And his presence here seems to contribute to that and could lead to more people becoming anti-vaxxers."
Shaimaa Khalil
Australia correspondent
If you think the government and defence’s arguments sound very different this time around - you would be right.
During the first hearing, the focus was all on procedure - how Novak was treated in the airport and how he wasn’t given enough time to consult his legal team.
This time both arguments are focused on Djokovic’s stance on the vaccine and whether that makes him a threat to public health.
His lawyers have spent the first segment of the hearing tearing at the argument that Djokovic's presence in Australia incited anti-vaccination feeling.
Nick Wood has argued that the government’s argument is based on falsehoods and that essentially you can’t rationally prove that his presence could influence opposition to the jab in the community - the forensic examination of a BBC article on what exactly the player said on vaccination is telling.
It means this is where the government knows this is their best chance at a public interest argument.
The government's lawyer rejects that there is no evidence that Djokovic is anti-vaccine.
Lawyer Stephen Lloyd says there's "ample evidence" based on Djokovic's unvaccinated status and his previous comments.
"There only needs to be a skerrick of evidence [to show that] and not only are there multiple skerricks, there's material substance to suggest that," Lloyd says.
He reiterates the risk assessment is based on public perception of what Djokovic believes, saying it means the minister doesn't need to get Djokovic's views directly.
Last week, much was made of Djokovic's error on his travel entry form into Australia. But the government is not using that error in its legal argument.
The error has "neutral" bearing on whether he's a risk to Australian public, the government has said.
In his letter to Djokovic cancelling his visa, Immigration Minister Alex Hawke said he accepted the tennis player's explanation for the false declaration. Djokovic said his agent had made the mistake on the paperwork and hadn't checked travel details with him.
"Mr Djokovic should have been more careful," Mr Hawke said.
The hearing has resumed. We pick up where the government left off.
As we wait for proceedings to resume shortly, some political commentators are condeming the government's claim that Djokovic's presence in Australia could increase anti-vax sentiments, calling the stance hypocritical.
Australian political academic Peter van Onselen says there have been instances where government MPs have expressed their own anti-vaccination views which have not been condemned by prime minister Scott Morrison.
Just to recap - Immigration Minister Alex Hawke characterised Djokovic as anti-vax and galvanising to anti-vax communities when taking the decision to cancel his visa last Friday.
Allow Twitter content?
This article contains content provided by Twitter. We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as they may be using cookies and other technologies. You may want to read Twitter’s cookie policy, external and privacy policy, external before accepting. To view this content choose ‘accept and continue’.
Shaimaa Khalil
Australia correspondent
Outside the court, it’s getting really loud again, with chants of “Nole” and “let him play” competing with the sounds of traditional music and dancing.
Earlier, the mood was a lot more subdued with no singing or dancing and everyone listening intently to the hearing.
Many of Djokovic's supporters are back - we recognise each other now.
"He’s here to play tennis. He’s here to put on a show to give us joy. This is disgraceful.” Mina Zogović tells me.
“We’re here for him again - this shouldn't happen," agrees Ivanka Procek, who adds that it is "exhausting" to be here again.
“We should be supporting him on the tennis court. Not in this court. This is not a fight we wanted.”
Mina Zogović outside the court
Simon Atkinson
BBC News, Melbourne
Novak Djokovic’s legal submissions included a 268-page affidavit.
A lot of it is the emails between the department and Djokovic’s lawyers over the past week, and copies of the forms the tennis star filled in or received when he was travelling to Australia and pages of guidance from the country’s technical group on immunisation, ATAGI.
Others are a little less dry - such as this screengrab of an online newspaper poll, asking readers to vote whether Djokovic should be allowed to stay.
And it appears to show that the tennis player’s lawyers voted “Yes”.
The court is currently adjourned for lunch, with proceedings expected to resume at 13:30 local time (02:30 GMT).
Image source, Federal Court of AustraliaThe poll from The Age newspaper was included in the submissions
Phew, after a few hours of legal arguments, the hearing is breaking for lunch. This gives us a chance to catch our breath and re-cap.
The government has begun outlining its arguments. So far, this has largely been giving evidence for why the immigration minister says Djokovic poses a risk to the health and good order of the Australian community.
Djokovic's lawyers spoke earlier, arguing that there is no real evidence to back up those claims.
The court will return at 13:30 local time (02:30 GMT). The government says it has about an hour more of oral submissions to go.
Government lawyer Lloyd is presenting material he says shows Djokovic's presence in Australia has led to an increase in anti-vax sentiment.
He cites an anti-vaccine and anti-government rally in Australia a day after Djokovic's first court hearing last week.
That's evidence of the unrest stirred up by the tennis player, he says, adding it shows that the minister made his decision based on real evidence.
Chief Justice Allsop has just interrupted the government's barrister to question the argument he was putting forward that Djokovic's presence in Australia stirs up anti-vaxxers and is a bad influence.
He essentially asks, wouldn't cancelling Djokovic's visa have a similar effect? This argument was put forward earlier by Djokovic's team.
“It would be clear to anyone with common sense that cancelling the visa would cause overwhelming discord and risk of transmission through large gatherings.. one could see the counterfactual overwhelming the mere focus only on consequences of [Djokovic's] presence…", Chief Justice Allsop says.
Barrister Stephen Lloyd is providing evidence for why Immigration Minister Alex Hawke characterised Djokovic as anti-vax and galvanising to anti-vax communities.
He says that Djokovic is still unvaccinated in 2022 is representative enough of the tennis player's views.
“It’s open to infer that a person in the applicant’s position could have been vaccinated if he wanted to be," Lloyd says.
He argues it doesn't actually matter what Djokovic's views on vaccines actually are in this case when the government is assessing "risk". Wood says it's the perception of the person - if the public thinks he's an anti-vax figure.
The court is due to break soon for lunch.
If you're just joining us, they argue the government:
Frances Mao
BBC News
Just a quick note here - the full bench of three judges in the Federal Court have intervened far less than Judge Anthony Kelly did in Novak Djokovic's first hearing on Monday.
Often, judges intervene during a barrister's flow to ask questions clarifying legal points, and to sometimes offer guidance if they feel a lawyer is going down an irrelevant legal path.
Two of the judges have just spoken up - one seeming to offer warning to Wood to not construe the meaning of "evidence" too narrowly.
But these have been rare interruptions - for the most part, the judges have listened to Wood without pause.
Lawyer Nick Wood says the government's been "somewhat perverse" in taking a "narrow lens" in characterising Djokovic's presence in Australia as a risk to public health.
If the government is going to say his ongoing presence in Australia aggravates anti-vax communities, Wood argues, wouldn't his forced deportation equally stir such an angry response?
"You can't ignore the other side of the coin," he says.
As we've been reporting, Djokovic's lawyers are trying to pick holes in the government's legal justification for cancelling the player's visa.
So what is that justification?
Immigration Minister Alex Hawke has argued - citing s116 of the Migration Act - that Djokovic's visa should be cancelled because his continued presence in Australia presents a risk to the "health" and "good order" of the Australian community.
He has also found that cancelling the visa would be in "the public interest" - the second condition that needs to be met.
But Djokovic's lawyers say "none of that is persuasive", saying these arguments flow from a false characterisation of Djokovic as an anti-vaccine figure. And that's there's no evidence to back that up, they say.
Wood says Djokovic is just here to play tennis, and the government has accepted that he entered on a valid exemption. So this idea that he's fostered anti-vaccine sentiment is "irrational" and "illogical", he says.
Djokovic's lawyer says it is wrong to suggest media articles show the player has encouraged anti-vax activists.
Referencing articles from the Guardian, BBC and ABC News, he argues that there is no real evidence that his client encouraged anti-vaccine sentiment.
Wood says, once again, that the BBC article he quoted earlier shows that it was the government's decision to cancel the visa that prompted a spike in anti-vaccine feeling.
"[This is] the only known evidence of anti-vax group anger, and agitation in response to the action by the state to cancel [Djokovic's] visa," he said.
Jonathan Jurejko
BBC Sport at Melbourne Park
Novak Djokovic has never hidden how much he craves ending his career with the most Grand Slam men's titles of all time.
This Australian Open presented the chance for the men's world number one to win his 21st major, moving him clear of long-time rivals Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal for the first time.
Even being unvaccinated did not stop Djokovic going to a country which has closed its borders to people who haven't being jabbed, believing his exemption would allow him to enter and play.
Challenging the decision to revoke his visa further illustrates Djokovic's desperation not to miss another opportunity for a Grand Slam victory.
This is the place where he would be - in normal circumstances - the overwhelming favourite to win.
Djokovic has already claimed a record nine men's titles in Melbourne, winning his past 21 matches there and losing just three times since 2011.
Now, after all that hard work on the court, it could be off-court circumstances that derail his bid for another piece of tennis history.