much scope is there in terms of a specific court hearing, what will they have to prove and what will djokovic�*s lawyers have to prove? it's djokovic�*s lawyers have to prove? it�*s a remarkable turn of events, really, because the minister�*s decision was based on vastly different reasons. he essentially accepted most of what mr djokovic went through in terms of exemptions. as you rightly say, he made a very different decision on the basis of the risk, the fact that he may be a risk to the good order and health in australia. what the court can do and can�*t do is important. the court may not agree with the minister. they might even think that the minister�*s decision was possibly unfair or incorrect but that doesn�*t matter. what matters here is whether there was some sort ofjurisdictional error. there needs to be some sort of legal error in the minister�*s decision in order for that decision to be quashed and declared null. it is very narrow.