MIGRATION - s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 - decision of delegate of Minister to refuse to grant the Visa Applicant a Visitor (Class FA) (subclass 600) visa - Direction no. 110 - whether the Visa Applicant passes the character test - whether the discretion to refuse the visa be exercised - Visa Applicant not resident in Australia - Visa Applicant convicted of membership of an unlawful organisation - membership of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) - harm that would be committed would be limited, likelihood of reoffending is low -Ties to Australia - legal consequences, extent of impediments and business interests are neutral - Visa Applicant is a 65-year-old year old citizen of the Republic of Ireland - Refusal is set aside

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) sections 499, 501(1), 501(6), 501(6)(a), 501(6)(e), 501(7), 501(7)(c), 501(12)

AJN23 v Minister for Immigration [2024] FCAFC 103

Ali v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 650

BSJ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1181

DOB18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1523

Hambledon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 7

Khalil and Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 151

Lesianawai v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 6

NBMZ v Minister for Immigration [2014] FCAFC 38; (2014) 220 FCR 1

NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 37

RRRB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] ARTA 471

Singh v Minister for Immigration for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 46

Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Cth), Direction no. 110 - Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (21 June 2024) - paras 5.1, 5.2, 6, 7, 8, 9, Annex A

Department of Immigration and Border Protection, Standard Q&A Report: Ireland/Spain: CI150513115325439 - Irish Republican Army (IRA) - Real Irish Republican Army (RIRA) - Continuity Irish Republican Army (CIRA) (Standard Q&A Report, 29 May 2015)

Department of Home Affairs, Standard Q&A Report: Ireland/Northern Ireland, United Kingdom: 20221017162837 - Law Enforcement/Corruption/Impunity/Judicial independence - State Protection - IRA - Catholic/Protestant Conflict - Mental Health Services (Standard Q&A Report, 8 November 2022)

1. The Review Applicant has sought review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, dated 30 April 2025, to refuse to grant the Visa Applicant, who is his stepfather, a Visitor (Class FA) (Subclass 600) visa under s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Migration Act).[1]

1. The Visa Applicant, Mr David Murray, is a 65-year-old citizen of the Republic of Ireland.[2] He has visited Australia once in November 2012, for a period of about 3 and a half weeks, and has not returned since.[3] He was resident in Ireland at the time of the hearing.
2. The Visa Applicant is married and has five children, two of whom are stepchildren. One of his children, Stephen, died by suicide in 2014. Both the Visa Applicant's stepson, Joseph Brennan, and the Visa Applicant's son, Calvin Murray, live in Western Australia and are Australian citizens.[4] Joseph Brennan is the Review Applicant in this matter.
3. The Visa Applicant's An Garda Síochána certificate (his Irish police certificate) records a number of offences committed by the Visa Applicant as an adult. These were primarily traffic offences.[5] The certificate also records offences committed when the Visa Applicant was a minor.
4. His most recent and most serious offence was 'membership of unlawful organisation', for which he was convicted on 6 April 2017 and sentenced to 4 years and 6 months' imprisonment.[6] It was this offence which formed the basis for the decision to refuse the application for a Visitor visa.
5. On 18 April 2022 the Review Applicant made an application to act as a sponsor for Sponsored Family Visitors.[7] On 15 July 2022 the Visa Applicant applied for the Visitor Short Stay visa under the Sponsored Family stream and listed his stepson Joseph Brennan, the Review Applicant, as his sponsor and contact in Australia.[8] The Visa Applicant indicated that he intended to come to Australia to visit his children and to attend the Review Applicant's wedding in November 2022.[9] He provided details of his offending history, including the April 2017 conviction, in his application for the visa.
6. On 14 February 2025, the Visa Applicant was issued a Notice of Intention to Consider Refusal (NOICR) pursuant to s 501 of the Migration Act. The NOICR stated that the visa application may be refused on character grounds under s 501(1) of the Act and invited the Visa Applicant to comment and respond.[10]
7. I note the copy of the NOICR did not include the attachments referred to in that document. Nor did the copy of the visa application provided to the Tribunal include the attachments referenced as uploaded in support of the application. The material referred to in the NOICR appears to have been included in the material before me as attachments to the delegate's decision record.[11]
8. On 7 March and 22 April 2025 the Visa Applicant responded to the NOICR through his representative, Richard Timpson of Timpson Immigration Lawyers.[12]
9. On 30 April 2025 a delegate of the Minister refused to grant the Visa Applicant a Visitor (Class FA) (subclass 600) visa under s 501(1) of the Migration Act.[13]
10. The Review Applicant, as the sponsor of the visa application, lodged an application for review of the decision to refuse the visa application with the Administrative Review Tribunal (Tribunal) on 20 March 2025.[14]

1. The hearing was conducted at the Tribunal's Perth Registry on 2 and 3 September 2025. The Visa Applicant appeared by video and was represented by Mr Angel Aleksov, who appeared in person. The Minister was represented by Ms Laura Mills, who appeared via video link.
2. The Visa Applicant gave evidence and was cross-examined at the hearing. The Tribunal also took evidence from the following witnesses:

(a) Mr Joseph Brennan, the Review Applicant and the Visa Applicant's stepson; > > (b) Mr Calvin Murray, the Applicant's son; and > > (c) Dr Chelsey Dewson, forensic psychologist.

3. Dr Dewson gave evidence by video, and Mr Brennan and Mr Murray gave evidence in person.
4. A Hearing Book compiled by the Respondent and agreed upon by the parties was exhibited at the hearing (T1).
5. The Hearing Book included the following submissions:

(d) The Review Applicant's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, dated 18 August 2025 (ASFIC); and > > (e) The Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (RSFIC), dated 27 August 2025.

1. The Visa Applicant applied for a Visitor visa which has been refused under s 501(1) of the Migration Act.
2. The Migration Act provides special powers for the Minister to refuse or cancel visas on character grounds. Under s 501(1) of the Act the Minister may refuse to grant a visa to a person if the person does not satisfy the Minister that the person passes the character test.[15]
3. The character test is set out at s 501(6) of the Migration Act. This includes s 501(6)(a) which provides that that a person does not pass the character test if they have a 'substantial criminal record' as defined in s 501(7). Section 501(7)(c) of the Migration Act provides that a person has a 'substantial criminal record' if they have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more. Section 501(12) provides that 'imprisonment' includes any form of punitive detention in a facility or institution and 'sentence' includes any form of determination of the punishment for an offence.
4. If the Visa Applicant does not meet the character test, the remaining issue is whether the discretion to refuse him a visa should be exercised.
5. On 7 June 2024, the Minister issued Direction no. 110[16] under s 499 of the Act (Direction no. 110). An objective of Direction no. 110 is to guide decision-makers in exercising powers under ss 501 or 501CA of the Migration Act.[17].
6. Direction no. 110 includes guidance for decision-makers on applying the character test.[18] The Direction also sets out primary and other considerations to be taken into account where the Tribunal is considering the exercise of the power under s 501(1) to refuse a visa.[19] The principles and guidance set out the Direction no.110 are discussed further below.

1. The first issue in this review is whether the Visa Applicant passes the character test set out in s 501 of the Act.
2. As noted above, on 6 April 2017 the Visa Applicant was convicted of 'membership of unlawful organisation' by the Irish Special Criminal Court, for which he was sentenced to 4 years and 6 months' imprisonment.
3. The Visa Applicant conceded he did not pass the character test due to this conviction and the resulting sentence of imprisonment by operation of s 501(6)(a) and (7)(c) of the Migration Act.[20] The Minister agreed.[21]
4. While there was some discussion regarding the processes applying in the Irish Special Criminal Court and, in particular, the fact the court drew a negative inference from the Applicant choosing to remain silent, neither party contended that the conviction and sentencing by the court did not meet the requirements of s 501(7)(c) of the Migration Act. There is nothing in the subsection or the evidence regarding the operation of that court that would lead the Tribunal to make such a finding.
5. I find that as the Applicant has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more, he does not pass the character test by operation of s 501(7)(c) of the Migration Act.
6. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the Applicant passes the character test.[22]

SHOULD THE DISCRETION TO REFUSE THE VISA BE EXERCISED?

1. As the Applicant does not pass the character test, I must then determine whether, having regard to the primary and other considerations contained within Direction no. 110, the discretion to refuse to grant the Applicant a visa under s 501(1) should be exercised.

1. In considering the exercise of the power under s 501(1), informed by the principles set out in para 5.2 of Direction no. 110, I must take account of the primary and other considerations set out in Direction no. 110 where relevant to the decision.[23]
2. In making a decision under s 501(1), the primary considerations to be taken into account by the Tribunal are:[24]

(a) protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;

(b) family violence engaged by the Applicant (if any);

(c) the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia;

(d) the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision; and

(e) the expectations of the Australian community.

1. The other considerations that the Tribunal must take into account, insofar as they are relevant to the application, include (but are not limited to):[25]

(b) extent of impediments if removed; and

(c) impact on Australian business interests.

1. I must also take into account any other representations made by the Applicant in support of his request that the visa not be refused.
2. The principles set out in para 5.2 of Direction no. 110 'provide the framework within which decision-makers should approach their task of deciding whether to ... refuse or cancel a non-citizen's visa under s 501 '. Those principles highlight that the safety of the Australian community is the government's highest priority and that Australia has a right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. They stress that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege conferred in the expectation that those individuals will be law-abiding, will respect Australia's law enforcement framework, and will not harm members of the community. The principles state that the community expects the government to cancel visas of individuals whose conduct raises serious character concerns regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
3. The Direction provides that while the community has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by individuals holding a limited stay visa, or who have only been contributing to the community for a short period of time, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of such conduct where the individual has lived in the community for most of their life, or from a very young age.
4. Noting that primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case must be taken into account, Direction no. 110 states that, in some circumstances, the nature of the conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not refusing the visa, including in circumstances where the information available at the time of consideration suggests that the non-citizen does not pose a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
5. Further guidance as to how a decision-maker is to apply the considerations in Direction no. 110 can be found in paragraph 7, which provides that:

(a) information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight when applying the considerations;

(b) the protection of the Australian community is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations, and primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations; and

(c) one or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.

1. There were several sets of submissions before the Tribunal relating to the exercise of the discretion under s 501(1). These included submissions provided by the Visa Applicant in response to the NOIRC and from the Review Applicant with respect to the current proceedings before the Tribunal.

1. At the hearing the Review Applicant relied primarily on the submissions made in the Statement of Facts Issues and Contentions filed with the Tribunal and submissions made orally at the hearing.

1. In summary, the Review Applicant submitted that the circumstances of the Visa Applicant's case weigh against exercising the discretion to refuse the visa. The Review Applicant submitted that:
   • the Visa Applicant's offending had a certain political, personal, and geographical context; and
   • there is a low risk of reoffending having regard to the Visa Applicant's remorse and rehabilitation and protective factors against reoffending identified in the report of Dr Dewson.

As such it was submitted that the Tribunal should be satisfied that the safety of the Australian community would not be compromised by the Visa Applicant entering Australia for a short few weeks' visit.[26]

1. In addition, it was submitted that:
   • The Visa Applicant has ties to his Australian citizen children who have built successful businesses in Australia and who actively contribute to the community through not-for-profit community support activities, including involvement with Human Excellence Project, an organisation that promotes mental health and suicide prevention.[27] The purpose of the visa application is to make a short-term visit to his sons and to enable future visits.
   • While the deemed expectation of the community would be that the visa would be refused, less weight should be placed on this consideration in the Visa Applicant's case, noting the low risk of offending in Australia, the fact the Visa Applicant was only convicted of one serious offence and was otherwise law abiding, the circumstances of that offence following as it did the tragic death of his son, and the impact on his relationship with his sons if he is unable to visit them and their families,
2. It was submitted that ultimately the decision rested on weighing the protection of the Australian community against the interests of the Visa Applicant and his family. It was contended that, given the lack of risk to the community presented by the Visa Applicant visiting Australia, the interests of the Visa Applicant and his family should outweigh considerations weighing in favour of the exercise of the discretion to refuse the Visa.

1. In submissions addressing whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to refuse the visa, the Minister submitted, in summary:[28]

(a) The Visa Applicant was convicted of being a member of a criminal organisation in Ireland. He was found to be in possession of items associated with making homemade explosive devices and those he was associated with were convicted of serious offences including possessing firearms, ammunition and explosives.[29] The nature of this offending was serious and were he to reoffend the harm which would be caused would be serious. Although the Visa Applicant's risk of reoffending was assessed as low, there were risk factors present including 'politically motivated grievances, alcohol abuse, unhelpful peer associations, cognitive distortions, a lack of consequential thinking and emotional dysregulation'.[30] > > (b) The Visa Applicant has never lived in Australia and his family members here have the capacity and the means to visit him in Ireland and the impact on them would not be significant; > > (c) Given the serious nature of the Visa Applicant's offending the expectation of the community would be that he would be refused the visa; > > (d) The considerations of family violence, best interests of minor children, extent of impediments if removed, and impact on Australian business interests are irrelevant. > > 1. Ultimately, the Minister contended that the nature of the harm should the Visa Applicant engage in membership of a criminal group would be significant and the protection of the Australian community and the expectations should outweigh the countervailing consideration of his ties to the community and impact on his Australian citizen children.

1. Direction 110 at 8.1(1) requires me to keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government, and to that end the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. In this respect, the Tribunal is directed to have particular regard to the principle that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.[31]

1. I must consider the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's criminal offending and other conduct to date.[32] In doing so, para 8.1.1(1) of Direction no. 110 provides that I must have regard to specific types of crimes or conduct which are 'viewed very seriously' by the Australian Government and the Australian community. Direction no. 110 also provides that certain other offences or conduct are considered to be 'serious'. I note that while Direction no. 110 expressly provides categories of conduct to be considered to be very serious or serious, it does not limit the range of conduct that may be so regarded.[33]
2. In considering the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's criminal offending or other conduct to date, I must have regard to the frequency of the non-citizen's offending and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness; the cumulative effect of repeated offending; whether the Visa Applicant has provided false or misleading information to the Department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending; whether the Visa Applicant has re-offended since being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware, in writing, about the consequences of further offending in terms of the Visa Applicant's migration status (noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non-citizen's favour). In addition, Direction no. 110 introduced a requirement under this consideration that I consider the impact of the offending on any victims and their family, where information regarding this is available, and the non-citizen whose visa is being considered for refusal or cancellation, or who has sought revocation of the mandatory cancellation of their visa, has been afforded procedural fairness as part of its consideration of the nature and seriousness of the Visa Applicant's offending and other serious conduct.[34]
3. The Review Applicant contended that the Visa Applicant's offending does not indicate any political inclinations that might affect Australia or its residents, and that it is 'unintelligible' to think that the Visa Applicant might engage in criminal or other anti-social conduct in Australia, connected with tendencies toward Irish nationalism.[35] The Visa Applicant is no longer associated with the IRA and in any event, membership of the IRA is not an offence in Australia.
4. In particular, the Review Applicant provided the following submissions in relation to the protection of the Australian community:[36]

(a) The Visa Applicant does not have a history of offending in Australia. His offending occurred in the Republic of Ireland and carried a political and historical bent with no connection to Australia. The Irish Republican Army has and had no operational basis outside of Europe. It is not listed as a terrorist organisation within Australia under the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) and its membership in this country is not a criminal offence. > > (b) The offences were against the Irish Offences Against the State Acts 1939-1998 and the head sentence imposed upon him was substantially less than the maximum eight years. > > (c) The Visa Applicant was only convicted of membership of the IRA. He was not convicted of any other offences, including any acts of violence or preparatory acts of violence. > > (d) The Visa Applicant's offending followed a personal tragedy in the suicide of his son and in the context of associated personal issues including alcohol abuse and mental health challenges. > > (e) Prior to the 2017 conviction, the Visa Applicant did not have a record of similar or serious offending. He has not offended since his release from prison. His offending has not been frequent, there is no trend of increasing seriousness and nor are there any cumulative effects of "repeated offending".

5. The Minister submitted that the Visa Applicant has been convicted of being a member of an unlawful group, and that the group has been involved in committing violent acts in Ireland. A known associate of the Visa Applicant was convicted of serious offences including possessing firearms, ammunition and explosives, and the Visa Applicant was found to have been in possession of material linked to offending of that type. Noting this, the Minister contended that the Visa Applicant's offending should be characterised as being 'violent' offending falling within the types of offending to be regarded as 'very serious' under paragraph 8.1.1.1(1)(a) of the Direction. The Minister also contended that the Visa Applicant's conduct constituted a crime committed against government representatives or officials due to the position they hold or in the performance of their duties (referring to paragraph 8.1.1.1(1)(b)(ii) of Direction no. 110) and should be considered to be serious.
6. In any event, the certain conduct which is to be regarded as 'very serious' or 'serious' under the Direction is not exhaustive and that the Visa Applicant's offending was objectively very serious. The Minister submitted that the Visa Applicant's prison sentence of 4 and a half years is lengthy and reflects the nature and seriousness of the Visa Applicant's offending. The Minister noted the sentencing court's explanation that the sentence was reduced from 6 years' imprisonment due to the Applicant's advanced age, poor health, cooperation with the trial being brought forward, including that he did not put up an effective contest, and the impact of his son's death shortly before the events that lead to the conviction.[37] The Minister contended that, notwithstanding these mitigating factors, the sentence reflected the offending was very serious.
7. I am required under Direction no. 110, to take into account a range of factors, including certain conduct which is to be regarded as 'very serious' or 'serious'.[38]
8. The Visa Applicant's offending history is at Annexure A to this decision. It includes the Applicant's most serious offence, membership of an unlawful organisation, as well as various other offences which the sentencing court in 2017 observed were not convictions of any relevance.[39]
9. As noted above, on 6 April 2017 the Visa Applicant was convicted of 'membership of unlawful organisation', for which he was sentenced to 4 years and 6 months' imprisonment.[40]
10. The evidence accepted by the Court included 'belief evidence' from an Assistant Commissioner of Police, that in his opinion or belief, based on confidential information available to him, the Visa Applicant was a member of the unlawful organisation. In terms of the issues before the Court to determine in trying the Visa Applicant, the Special Criminal Court noted that the Court must be satisfied that there is a combination of belief and other supporting evidence that leaves the Court with no reasonable possibility other than that the accused was a member of an unlawful organisation on the relevant date.[41]
11. According to the sentencing remarks, the circumstances of this offence were that the Visa Applicant's home was searched by members of the Special Detective Unit (SDU) on 25 March 2015.[42] The Court noted that during that search a number of items were seized which the Court was satisfied supported and corroborated the 'belief evidence' that the Visa Applicant was member of the IRA. During the search a detective found a handwritten 'tick list' on a diary page dated 22 February 2012, which the Court described as the most significant and 'most sinister' item located. The Court was satisfied that the document represented a type of 'shopping list' for ingredients commonly used in the construction of improvised or homemade explosive devices. The Court was also satisfied that the 'tick list' document conclusively linked him to the activities of the IRA. Other documents corroborating the belief evidence that the Visa Applicant was a member of the IRA included:

(a) The transcript of a bail application by another person, which the Court found was part of the process for monitoring the activities of the Court in relation to persons charged before it with membership of the unlawful organisation. > > (b) Copies of the head and foot of an official garda document, which did not appear to have any legitimate purpose or connection with the Visa Applicant. The Court was satisfied that the Visa Applicant had these items to assist in forgery of an official garda document by the IRA. > > (c) A document containing partially accurate information as to the transport of large quantities of cigarettes. > > (d) Documents detaining the ownership and activities of a large number of security companies, which the Court considered were possessed in contemplation of the commission of serious crimes and furtherance of the aims of the unlawful organisation in question. > > (e) Documents containing financial details relating to purchases, travel expenses and bail money. > > (f) Documents and an object relating to fundraising for prisoners associated with the IRA.

12. The Court also relied on the failure or refusal by the Visa Applicant to answer specific and pertinent questions put to him on matters of material relevance and substance in the course of interviews during his detention for the purpose of the investigation of the matter14 and some surveillance evidence that placed the accused in the company of an individual named Stephen Hendrick and another person at two separate locations in September 2014.15
13. The Court described the evidence of membership of the IRA as being 'abundant and overwhelming'.[43] Ultimately, the Court was satisfied on the evidence, including on belief evidence of the Assistant Commissioner, that the Visa Applicant was guilty of being a member of the IRA.
14. In the context of sentencing, the Court heard details of the offending from the police who gave evidence that the 'tick list' in the Visa Applicant's home bore a striking resemblance to a document seized from Stephen Hendrick. Mr Hendrick was found to be in possession of large quantities of explosive device components, firearms and ammunition in his home. The Court described the offence as 'grave' and assessed having regard to all the evidence that the offence fell within the mid and top range for the offence of membership.[44]
15. The Court noted some factors in the Visa Applicant's favour in the context of sentencing including that he cooperated with his trial being brought up the list, didn't 'seek to drag his feet or prevaricate' and therefore was entitled to some consideration for the fact that there was no effective contest.
16. Regarding the offending, the Visa Applicant testified that he had become involved with persons later convicted of having been members of the IRA at a local pub which he was frequenting in the period following his son's death. He indicated some of these people were friends or associates of his son, Stephen, prior to his death and he found comfort in being around them. He acknowledged he was drinking excessively at this stage. He said he was approached to organise fundraising for the families of IRA prisoners and had agreed. In relation to the documents he was holding the Visa Applicant says he had been asked to hold documents for others, including for Mr Hendrick. He now knows this is because the police were investigating their activities. He said he didn't look at the documents or ask what they were in part because he was frightened of asking such questions.
17. The Visa Applicant testified he was not involved in illegal activities. He said that he had been a member of Sinn Fein in the past, the political wing of the Irish Republican movement, but was not actively involved in Sinn Fein. He said after the peace accords the IRA put down their weapons but there were those that disagreed with this approach and wanted to keep fighting. Paramilitary splinter groups emerged but the Visa Applicant contended there was no 'organisation' as such and that for the most part these groups ended up operating more as organised crime groups. He said he did not support such activity. He said he did not know precisely which organisation he had been convicted of being a member of other than it was for being associated with groups seeking to pursue an IRA agenda.
18. The Visa Applicant stated that all the IRA prisoners were put in Portlaoise Prison and that IRA military leaders effectively ran a section of the prison. He asked to be removed from that section to dissociate himself from the IRA and was threatened as a result of that decision. He said he wanted nothing to do with those associated with the IRA and the criminal activities it was involved in, and that separating himself from them was a way he could ensure he could have no involvement with them after he had served his term. His wife's statement also makes reference to this.[45]
19. The Visa Applicant challenged the characterisation of those he was involved with as an 'organisation'. He denied being a 'member' of the IRA or any splinter paramilitary group associating itself with the IRA. Further, he stated that the IRA group that he was charged with being a member of was a 'small scale dissident group' that was no longer a threat as it have been 'infiltrated and clamped down on by police.[46]
20. I note that there was some uncertainty about exactly which group, if any, the Visa Applicant has been alleged to be a member of other than 'the IRA'. Country information submitted by the Minister suggested there were many paramilitary groups which fell under this banner.[47] One mentioned in the Court records was 'Ógliaigh na hÉireann'.[48] The description of that group in the country information broadly accords with the Visa Applicant's description, namely that following arrests of leaders in 2018 the group declared a cease fire against the British State but continued to engage in paramilitary style attacks against those suspected of anti-social behaviour.[49] At the hearing the parties contended there was insufficient evidence to determine the specific organisation of which the Visa Applicant had been found to be a member and I accept the findings of the Court do not make it clear. In any event, it was submitted, and I accept, that the relevant conduct was membership of the IRA as an unlawful organisation and that for the purposes of this review the particular paramilitary group were not determinative.
21. The Visa Applicant was questioned about his political beliefs and, in my view, articulated beliefs consistent with a commitment to Irish nationalism. However, he avowed that he believed the objectives of the nationalist movement could only be achieved by peaceful political means and that he did not support or condone violent activities in the name of Irish nationalism. I consider his commitment to having broken contact with antisocial peers in the IRA was genuine, including because there was no evidence he had any negative or unlawful associations since leaving prison in 2020.
22. This is also consistent with the account of his political activities and beliefs recorded in Dr Dawson's report. In her summary she notes:[50]

[The Visa Applicant] appears to have experienced political grievances in the past, and whilst he still likely holds an interest in political affairs, these don't appear to elicit any strong emotional responses on his behalf. Further, he verbalised his support for democratic processes and, in recent years, has shown greater tolerance for others. His associations with IRA members are an ongoing vulnerability, in that he could re-establish these connections relatively easily, should he choose to do so. It appears his perceived mistreatment by them in the past, however, has significantly fractured these relationships, at least from [the Visa Applicant's] perspective.

23. As noted above, the Visa Applicant was convicted by the Special Criminal Court which is established to deal with offences against the State. It is constituted by three Judges. It was evident there are elements of the Court's processes which may not have a direct equivalent in Australian system and the Visa Applicant expressed in general terms concerns about the fairness of that Court. However, neither party sought to challenge the validity of the conviction on the basis of the constitution or function of the Court, and I accept the standing of the Court and the conviction issued as relevant to this review.
24. Noting the submissions made by the Minister, I am not satisfied that the Visa Applicant's offending falls within the categories outlined para 8.1.1(1)(a) and 8.1.1(1)(b) of Direction no. 110. I do not think the Visa Applicant's 2017 offence could properly be described as a violent offence, noting he was convicted of membership of the IRA only. Further, while the risk to officials may be a factor in the policy rationale for the membership offence in Ireland, I do not think the offence itself lends itself to characterisation as an offence against an official in the performance of their duties. I consider something specific would be required to warrant that characterisation in this case. However, it is clear that there will also be crimes or other conduct which can properly be characterised as serious or very serious, but which are not specifically mentioned in this part of Direction no. 110 and I consider that the Visa Applicant's offending should be considered to be serious.
25. In my view the Visa Applicant's 2017 conviction is properly characterised as serious offending. The Court sentenced the Visa Applicant to more than 4 years in prison, notwithstanding factors taken into account in his favour. That is a significant sentence demonstrating the objective seriousness of the office. Material submitted by the Minister highlights some of the more dangerous activities of the new IRA, including murder of public officials.[51] There is no suggestion the Visa Applicant was involved in any such activity. However, the offence itself and the seriousness with which it was dealt with by the Court indicate that the criminalisation of connections with such organisations is considered by the Irish State to be a means to control the threat posed by IRA activities which present a risk to public safety. The material submitted by the Minister records the very serious risks paramilitary organisations associated with the 'New IRA' present to the local community in which they are active, particularly in Northern Ireland. 'Membership' of such organisations, even where such membership is demonstrated by acts and associations rather than organisational structures, is serious because it facilitates and offers support to those engaging in violent activity.[52] That presents a serious risk to the communities in Ireland and Northern Ireland which is reflected in the membership offence provisions of the laws of the Republic of Ireland.
26. The An Garda Síochána certificate before the Tribunal included details of offences recorded when the Visa Applicant was a juvenile. While there was argument made that such offences could not be taken into account in this case,[53] given his age at the time of those offences, their relatively minor nature and the time which has passed, I do not consider they add to the overall assessment of the nature and seriousness of the Visa Applicant's offending and I do not place any weight on them. Those offences have not been reproduced in the table at Annexure A.
27. The Visa Applicant's first adult offence is listed in the conviction summary in the An Garda letter as being for receiving in June 1987, for which is recorded an 18-month suspended sentence. However, this offence did not appear in the certificate itself and the Visa Applicant denied knowledge of that offence. The Minister submitted, and I accepted, that as it was unclear whether this offence had been correctly recorded in the letter I should disregard it. The Review Applicant agreed and accordingly that offence has not been reproduced in the table at Annexure A.
28. In 2009 he was convicted of intoxication in a public place and threatening/abusive/insulting behaviour in a public place, for which he received a €50 and €100 fine respectively. The remaining offences are traffic-related offences, including failing to produce a driving licence, driving without a licence, exceeding the speed limit, and for not having insurance. The most significant fine imposed for these offences was €500. I consider these offences to be relatively minor, attracting fines or other administrative penalties. I do not consider the Visa Applicant's history of minor criminal offences adds to the overall assessment of the nature and seriousness of his offending.
29. While the Visa Applicant has some history of past offending, he was only convicted of the one serious offence in 2017. While his membership of the IRA involved some degree of frequency of engagement with the unlawful organisation, I do not consider that his offending was marked by frequency. I do note the offence for which he was convicted in 2017 did mark a sharp escalation in offending from earlier minor infringements, adding to the seriousness of the offence. In my view there was no clear evidence of a cumulative effect of offending.
30. I must also consider whether the Visa Applicant has provided false or misleading information to the Department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending. I note that the Minister contended that the Visa Applicant's failure to declare his criminal convictions relating to his traffic offences on incoming passenger cards in 2012 demonstrated a lack of regard for Australian law.[54] The Visa Applicant contended he was not aware the convictions counted as criminal convictions and that he had not intentionally failed to declare them. Given the nature of those offences, I accept this explanation and do not consider this contributes to the overall assessment of his conduct and offending as serious.
31. There was no evidence that the Visa Applicant had re-offended since being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware, in writing, about the consequences of further offending in terms of the Visa Applicant's migration status. Similarly, there was no evidence relating to any victims of the Visa Applicant's offence.[55]
32. Taking the Visa Applicant's record as a whole, the Tribunal considers his conduct and offending to be serious.

Risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct

1. I am required to assess the risk that may be posed by the Visa Applicant to the Australian community by considering, cumulatively, the nature of the harm to individuals or to the community should the Visa Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct and the likelihood of the Visa Applicant engaging in such conduct.[56] There is no statutory constraint on the way that risk is assessed by the decision-maker other than that there must be a rational and probative basis for the assessment.[57]
2. Relevant to the Visa Applicant's circumstances, Direction no 110 provides that where consideration is being given to whether to refuse to grant a visa I must also have regard to whether the risk of harm may be affected by the duration and purpose of the Visa Applicant's intended stay, the type of visa being applied for, and whether there are strong or compassionate reasons for granting a short stay visa.[58]
3. Direction no. 110 refers to the 'risk to the Australian community' and 'likelihood of reoffending' as distinct though related concepts.[59] 'Likelihood' of reoffending is an element to be considered in determining the 'risk' to the community. The other is the nature of the harm which would be caused if the Applicant were to reoffend.

1. In order to determine the risk to the Australian community should the Visa Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct, I must consider the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the Visa Applicant reoffend.
2. The Review Applicant maintained that the Visa Applicant's history does not indicate any political inclinations that might affect Australia, or its residents. Submissions went on to state:[60]

It is, in some respects, unintelligible to think that Murray might engage in criminal or other anti-social conduct in Australia, connected with tendencies toward Irish nationalism. Although Irish nationalist sentiment might conceivably be found within pockets of Australia, it does not know to be an issue that leads to any violent or anti-social behavior.

3. Accordingly, the Review Applicant submits the Visa Applicant does not represent an unacceptable risk to the community.
4. The Minister contended that the nature of the harm to the community should the Visa Applicant reoffend a similar manner to that of his previous offence, the nature of the harm that may result would be potentially significant as the Visa Applicant would be a member of a group that is committing unlawful and violent acts and sometimes commits acts of terrorism. In this regard the Minister cited country information, highlighting the following:[61]
   • following the Good Friday Agreement of April 1998, the IRA announced in July 2005 that it had ended its armed campaign and would pursue only peaceful means to achieve its objectives. Splinter groups including the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA continued to operate following the Good Friday Agreement and the 2005 announcement;[62]
   • the Center for Transatlantic Relations stated in March 2014 that 'some Northern Irish police officers' had claimed that 'the Real IRA now resembles a criminal organization that sometimes carries out acts of terrorism, rather than a terrorist group that has to dabble in crime';[63]
   • a number of dissident republican groups remain active in Northern Ireland, United Kingdom including the New IRA, the Real IRA and Continuity IRA.[64] These dissident groups have been described as "highly fractured" and came into being when disaffected republicans broke away from the republican political party Sinn Fein and its armed wing the Provisional IRA, and the threat to Northern Ireland from Northern Ireland-related terrorism is substantial.[65] The groups' violence largely focuses on police and military targets through the use of firearms and explosive devices;[66] and
   • in September 2020, the New IRA is the most prominent republican paramilitary group still active in Northern Ireland and like its predecessors, it is dedicated to the unification of Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic and has carried out a violent campaign against the security forces and it is firmly opposed to the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, the peace accord that ended the three-decade long conflict known as the Troubles during which more than 3,500 people were killed and almost 50,000 were injured. Dissident republicans like those in the New IRA differ from the mainstream brand of republicanism in that they reject the terms of the Good Friday Agreement and believe that violence remains a legitimate means to achieve their objectives.[67]
5. While there may be instances where criminal offending in another jurisdiction may present a risk to the community in Australia notwithstanding such activity may not constitute an offence here, I consider the assessment of such potential for harm must be made taking account of the individual circumstances and the nature of the conduct and offending. Certainly, s 5016)(b) envisages circumstances where a person will fail the character test due to membership of a group or association which has engaged in criminal conduct.[68] Failure of that limb of the character test does not require that membership to present a risk to the Australian community though the risk and the nature of the harm which may arise from the identified membership will be relevant in considering whether the discretion to cancel or refuse a visa is exercised. While that section did not give rise to the refusal in this case, noting the Visa Applicant's conviction and imprisonment for an offence in similar terms, it demonstrates such associations are considered to potentially raise character concerns regardless of whether they have given rise to criminal convictions.
6. However, I note that there was no suggestion the Visa Applicant would be seeking to further the agenda of groups associated with the New IRA in Australia. Indeed, there is no information to suggest he has ongoing associations with any organisation designated as an IRA group in Ireland, noting he has been in the community since his release from prison in 2020 and given past association and conviction for membership of the IRA he would be of interest to authorities with respect to any further offences involving association with such groups or individuals.
7. Even were the Visa Applicant to express sentiments supportive of Irish nationalism consistent with those expressed under oath before the Tribunal and to Dr Dewson in her interview with the Visa Applicant (considered further below), I do not consider such views would cause harm to individuals or to the Australian community.
8. I consider the nature of the harm which may be caused if the Visa Applicant were to reoffend in a similar manner to his past history, being the provision of support for unlawful organisations who may be engaged in other criminal activities for overseas in pursuit of a nationalist political agenda, to be limited.

Likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or serious conduct

1. In order to determine the risk to the Australian community should the Visa Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct, the Tribunal must also consider the likelihood of the Visa Applicant reoffending if he were permitted to remain in the Australian community.[69]
2. The Review Applicant submitted that the Visa Applicant presented minimal risk to the community noting:[70]
   • The length of time since the commission of the offences and conviction is relevant as is his current age. The offences occurred over ten years ago, and the Visa Applicant is now sixty-five years old.
   • The Visa Applicant has no prior history of relevant criminal offences. There is also no suggestion that he has been the subject of criminal proceedings upon his release from prison in the Republic of Ireland. Consequently, the Tribunal can conclude he has obeyed the laws of Ireland going to such matters on all but one occasion.
   • The Visa Applicant's offending had a geographical and political connotation. There is no crux that any extremist form of Irish nationalism has with Australia.
   • There are protective factors in place that militate against his risk. These were summarized by Dr Dewson and include the Visa Applicant's focus on his relationships with his wife and children, his increased knowledge of the results of his actions, and his lack of attitudes supporting political violence.
3. Forensic psychologist Dr Chelsey Dewson provided a report to the Tribunal, dated 1 August 2025.[71] The Report comprehensively assessed the Visa Applicant's offending history and circumstances and provided an assessment of his risk of reoffending. Dr Dewson noted in her report that the usual tools for assessing risk do not allow for a precise assessment of the risk of politically motivated crimes, or crimes driven by extremist ideology. As such she had undertaken standard testing and also applied a qualitative assessment of likelihood of reoffending.
4. Dr Dewson found there was a low likelihood the Visa Applicant would reoffend. She summarised her risk assessment as follows:[72]

Risk Summary: Mr Murray's offending occurred in the context of complex social, political economic and personal circumstances. An assessment of his risk profile suggests that he isn't an inherently violent person, and risks moving forward (should he reoffend) primarily relate to nonviolent offences. Whilst he has a criminal history, there are significant gaps between offences, reflecting the capacity for self-regulation and the ability to live a lawful lifestyle. Further, and noting the nature of Mr Murray's past offences (largely street crime and traffic offences), he has exceeded the age at which many offenders "age out" or desist from crime. Mr Murray appears to have experienced political grievances in the past, and whilst he still likely holds an interest in political affairs, these don't appear to elicit any strong emotional responses on his behalf. Further, he verbalised his support for democratic processes and, in recent years, has shown greater tolerance for others. His associations with IRA members are an ongoing vulnerability, in that he could re-establish these connections relatively easily, should he choose to do so. It appears his perceived mistreatment by them in the past, however, has significantly fractured these relationships, at least from Mr Murray's perspective. It is anticipated that his family (and to a lesser extent, community) connections will meet his future social needs and discourage him from pursuing unhealthy friendships. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr Murray is imminently at risk of committing a loan-actor offence, and future risks likely relate to group-based contexts. That being said, there is no evidence that he is presently associated with a group, nor that he currently aligns himself intellectually with any group-based cause. A change in the political landscape could reinvigorate Mr Murray to return to political activism, although hopefully he has sufficient protective factors in place to manage any risk associated with such. At present, the main risk posed by Mr Murray is overseas, and whilst not impossible, it is difficult to foresee any plausible scenario in which he would be both motivated and capable of targeting Australia and its citizens. > > Overall, and taking into consideration the available information, risk factors associated with Mr Murray's offending include: politically motivated grievances; alcohol abuse; unhelpful peer associations; cognitive distortions (about himself, others and the world around him); a lack of consequential thinking; and emotional dysregulation (perpetuated by avoidance-based coping).

1. The Minister contended that the Visa Applicant posed a risk of reoffending, noting Dr Dewson's report highlighted risk factors including alcohol abuse, mental health issues, and the fact that the Visa Applicant admitted to continuing to drink alcohol. The Minister contended that the Visa Applicant continued to minimise his offending and continues to hold Irish republican views. The Minister contended that the consideration weighs against granting the visa, noting that while the Visa Applicant's risk has been assessed as low, there are risk factors are present, and the nature of the harm were the Visa Applicant to reoffend is very serious.

1. I agree with the Minister that the Visa Applicant continued to deny membership of the IRA and minimise the seriousness of his offending. His denial of membership seemed to be an issue of semantics. He denied there was such an organisation as the New IRA, but accepted he has been associated with people he now considers were engaged in criminal paramilitary activity. He accepted he raised funds for prisoners on behalf of this group of people. This ongoing minimisation causes some concern about his insight into this offending, however Dr Dewson's report makes it clear that for a variety of reasons he has chosen to dissociate himself from antisocial peers and has shifted his political perspective such that it is unlikely he would engage again in such activity in Ireland.

1. Dr Dewson's report also highlights the difficulty in conceiving a circumstance where the Visa Applicant would reoffend while visiting Australia. Having regard to Dr Dewson's report and the other evidence before the Tribunal I do not think there is other than a low risk that he would reoffend and, given his past offending, the risk would be one of association which in the Australian context is apt not to cause harm, noting the organisation with which he has been previously associated is not a banned organisation here.
2. Further, Dr Dewson notes the Visa Applicant's views have matured and tempered following his incarceration noting there was 'no indication [the Visa Applicant] ever had the intent to personally carry out an act of violence' and noting that:[73]

He reflected on the impact that his past actions have had on his family (including his siblings and extended family), who have continued to support him, despite his circumstances. He acknowledged that future offending or instances of violence would not only go against his beliefs, but would jeopardise his freedom, connection with family and support from his wife and children. Given the strong bond he reportedly has with his family, this is likely a strong protective factor against future offending.

3. This was consistent with the evidence the Visa Applicant gave to the Tribunal. I consider he still holds Irish nationalist political views but sincerely regrets past associations and decisions to become involved in activities which he now acknowledges were unacceptable and which ultimately caused significant harm to his own family which had already suffered with the loss of his son. I found his commitment not to reengage with those seeking to use criminal means to further Irish nationalism to be genuine, reflecting a prioritisation of his family's wellbeing and security and his connection with them in the period he has left in his retirement.

1. The Visa Applicant's commitment to not reoffending and to living a prosocial life was supported by statement from his wife,[74] sister,[75] and other contacts in Ireland including from a local member of parliament and member of Sinn Fein, Mr Ellis, who spoke of the Visa Applicant's efforts to give back to the community in Ireland through support for local youth organisations.[76] The chairman of the local youth and football club and a member of the local Parish church provided letters of support in similar terms detailing the Visa Applicant's efforts to give back to the community in a positive way and maintain prosocial associations in the community.[77]

1. Mrs Murray described the circumstances of the Visa Applicant's offending in the wake of their son's death and the commitment he has made to their family going forward. She stated:[78]

My husband is not a risk to Australia. At best, from 2014 he was a risk to himself and that was clearly how it manifested in terms of his grief. We fully understand that allowing my husband into Australia is a privilege and we do not have any sense of entitlement to that happening. I guess why we are trying and have gone to such lengths is just the personal side of things and for our remaining boys. My husband is a good man. I can assure you he is no risk to the community there. He is so far gone from those days after 2014 that he is a different person.

2. I consider, having regard to all the material before me, that there is a low likelihood of the Visa Applicant reoffending generally but particularly while in Australia. He has strong prosocial supports in the community here and has strong incentives not to reoffend. He is aware that offending in Australia or in Ireland would effectively prevent his having regular contact with his sons and their families and that this would have a major impact on himself and his wife maintaining a close bond with their sons here.
3. Having considered all evidence of the Applicant's circumstances, the Tribunal considers the Applicant's overall likelihood of reoffending is low.

1. I must also consider whether the risk of harm may be affected by the duration and purpose of the Visa Applicant's intended stay, the type of visa being applied for, and whether there are strong or compassionate reasons for granting a short stay visa.
2. The Visa Applicant has applied for a Visitor visa which is a short stay visa allowing him to remain in Australia for a period of up to three months. In the application he indicated an intention to stay for about 10 days for his son's wedding, which has since passed, but at the hearing indicated he wasn't sure how long they would visit for. I did not place any weight on this uncertainty given the length of time it has taken to consider the application and the uncertainty this has created for the Visa Applicant and his wife regarding a planned visit. I accept they may stay up to three months.
3. I consider that the short stay nature of the visa reduces the risk to the community, noting I have already found the risk of reoffending to be low.
4. I also consider, for reasons outlined further in the consideration to the strength, nature and duration of the Visa Applicant's ties to Australia, that there are some compassionate reasons for granting the visa, noting the family's history of loss and the desire of the Visa Applicant's sons to share their life in Australia with him and his wife.

Conclusion on the protection of the Australian community

1. As noted above, I consider the nature of the Visa Applicant's conduct and offending to be serious.
2. The nature of the harm which would be caused were he to reoffending is difficult to assess, noting that while we have membership offences in Australia related to listed terrorist organisations, the New IRA is not so designated and membership of that group is not an offence. As such, I consider the harm which would be caused if he were to reoffend while in Australia would be limited in Australia.
3. I consider the likelihood of the Applicant offending while in Australia to be low.
4. The Visa Applicant seeks to travel to Australia on a Visitor visa to see his sons. That visa would enable him to remain for a period of up to three months. In the Tribunal's view the short stay nature of this visa reduces the risk associated with the Visa Applicant's presence in Australia, which is already low. Further, the Tribunal considers there are compassionate reasons for allowing him to visit his sons, noting the family history of losing a son to suicide and the extended period that has passed since the Visa Applicant has been able to spend time with his son in Australia.
5. Having regard to the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's offending and conduct, and to the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or other serious conduct, I find that this primary consideration weighs in favour of refusing the visa but only carries slight weight. .

1. Paragraph 8.2 Direction no. 110 provides that decision-makers, such as the Tribunal, must have regard to family violence perpetrated by the non-citizen when making a decision under s 501(1) of the Migration Act.
2. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the Applicant has engaged in acts of family violence. Accordingly, I consider that this consideration is not relevant in the Applicant's case and afford it no weight.

The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia

1. I am required to consider any impact of the decision on the Visa Applicant's immediate family members in Australia who are Australian citizens, permanent residents, or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.[79]
2. While paragraph 8.3(2) of Direction no. 110 requires consideration of the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the Applicant has to the Australian community, having regarding to how long they have lived in Australia and the strength, duration and nature of any family or social links with citizens, permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia that consideration only applies where consideration is being given t whether to cancel a visa or revoke the mandatory cancellation of a visa.[80] As those are not the Visa Applicant's circumstances, this consideration is limited to paragraph 8.3(1).
3. The Visa Applicant's stepson and son are Australian citizens and reside in Western Australia. The Visa Applicant also has two daughters-in-law in Australia, Joseph's wife Jenny, and Calvin's wife Lorna.
4. The Visa Applicant's 19-year-old grandson Kian currently resides in Australia on a working holiday visa, such the impact on him cannot be taken into account for this consideration. In any event, there was very limited information before me regarding Kian's circumstances.
5. The Review Applicant, Joseph Brennan, provided a statement to the Tribunal dated 18 August 2025.[81] His letter inviting the Visa Applicant to his wedding was provided to the Department.[82] The Review Applicant was two months old when the Visa Applicant came into his life as his mother's partner. He moved into their home later that year.[83]
6. The Review Applicant runs several successful businesses. The Minister submitted that if the Visa Applicant were not able to visit Australia the Review Applicant had the means to be able to visit the Visa Applicant in Ireland. The Review Applicant rejected this, noting it was difficult to leave his several businesses for any period of time and he and his wife plan to have a child soon, which would further complicate international travel. I consider the review applicant has the capacity to travel to Ireland and could do so if he and his wife consider it a priority.
7. The Visa Applicant's son, Calvin Murray, provided a statement to the Tribunal dated 18 August 2025.[84] Mr Murray describes the applicant as someone who has been an 'incredible rock' to the family over a significant number of years, that the Visa Applicant has always showed Mr Murray and his other siblings 'the utmost love, kindness and respect', and that he worked hard throughout his life to give Mr Murray and his siblings the best childhood filled with 'holidays and other amazing experiences'.
8. Mr Murray described the impact that his brother Stephen's death took on the family, and said that after Stephen's death the Visa Applicant 'spiralled into a depression and was deeply traumatised'. Mr Murray said that the Visa Applicant likely would never get over finding Stephen, nor would he get over the loss of his child. Mr Murray said that following this time the Visa Applicant was 'undoubtably vulnerable and became involved with the organisation'. Mr Murray said that he does not think his father is or was 'some violent revolutionary' but rather that his actions 'needs to be viewed through the lens of his mental health following Stephen's loss'.
9. Mr Murray said that his father is an advocate for mental health, partaking in many events around Dublin and Ireland, and that 'he has come full circle and now tries to help as many people as he can, as he knows what it is like to hit rock bottom'. Mr Murray says that the Visa Applicant is not a risk to Australia, and that he assures and guarantees the Tribunal that he will not cause any issues in Australia.
10. Mr Murray said that he wants the Visa Applicant to see Australia and the lives his children have made here, and that Mr Murray is not able to return to Ireland as frequently and this will be less so once he has children of his own. He maintained his own financial capacity to return to Ireland is limited but conceded his wife had recently returned for a period while her father was unwell.
11. The Review Applicant also provided a letter of support from Caitlin Collins MLA, Member for Hillarys, the Review Applicant's electorate.[85] That letter notes the Review Applicant's contribution to the community and the connection he has with his father. There is no indication Ms Collins knows the Visa Applicant directly and I place less weight on her endorsement on that basis, however it supports the Review Applicant's account of his circumstances in Australia which I accept may be directly known to Ms Collins.
12. The Minister accepted that the Visa Applicant has a strong and close relationship with his sons in Australia, but submitted that were the Tribunal to affirm the decision to refuse the visa, the impact on his sons and their partners would be limited as they would have to visit their father in Ireland, rather than him visiting them in Australia.[86] The Minister contended the Visa Applicant had not made a personal contribution to Australia.
13. I accept that the Visa Applicant is close to both his sons and that he wants to be free to come to Australia to see them and experience their lives. He indicated he would plan to visit frequently with his wife and that as they are retired, they will have ample time to do so. I also accept that the Visa Applicant's sons have the means to travel to Ireland should they wish. However, I accept their capacity to travel for extended periods will be limited compared with their retiree parents.
14. I also accept the Visa Applicant has not made a personal contribution to Australia. However, this consideration asks the Tribunal to consider the impact of the decision on their immediate family members in Australia who are citizens or permanent residents. It is clear the Visa Applicant's sons have built a life in Australia and have strong connections to the community as citizens, including through business and charitable work. They have emigrated to this country as young men and have built impressive lives for themselves, building their businesses, establishing families and proactively creating opportunities to give back to the community in an area where their own experience highlighted a need to support others in times of personal crisis. Their commitment demonstrates a strong connection to Australia and a commitment to a future here. The inability of their parents to travel together to Australia to share in their lives will no doubt present a significant burden on their lives going forward. In my view the Visa Applicant's ties to the country are strengthened given these developed ties here.
15. Overall, I conclude that the strength, nature and duration of the Visa Applicant's ties to Australia through his sons weigh against refusing the Visitor visa. I afford this consideration strong weight.

Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision

1. I must also consider the best interests of the minor children in Australia affected by the decision.
2. There is no evidence that suggests the Applicant has any minor children in Australia. Consequently this consideration carries neutral weight.

1. I am required to weigh the expectations of the Australian community. Paragraph 8.5(1) of Direction no. 110 provides that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. The Direction goes on to state that where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the government would not allow them to enter or remain in Australia.
2. Paragraph 8.5(2) directs that visa cancellation or refusal, or non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa, may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences is such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa.
3. Direction no. 110 notes that the Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they raise serious character concerns through conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, of particular kinds. The paragraph directs that, in particular, the Australian community expects that the Australian Government would not grant a non-citizen's visa if they raise serious character concerns through specific conduct listed in sub-paragraphs 8.5(2)(a)-(f). Those particularised types of harm generally reflect the types of conduct identified in paragraph 8.1.1 as conduct which is considered 'very seriously' or 'serious'.
4. As noted earlier, the Minister contended both that the Visa Applicant's offending could be characterised as a crime against government representatives or officials due to the positions they hold, or in the performance of their duties.[87] The Minister submitted that while the Visa Applicant himself had not committed such crimes, the IRA has been responsible for such crimes and the Visa Applicant has been convicted of being a member of the IRA.[88] As noted earlier, there is no evidence that the Visa Applicant engaged in activities other than being a member of the IRA. That was a serious offence but, on the information before me, it did not involve acts of violence or acts directly against officials and I do not consider the offending falls within that part of the Direction.
5. However, the list in sub-paragraphs 8.5(2)(a)-(f) is not exhaustive of the types of conduct that may give rise to serious character concerns and, noting my findings above with respect to the 2017 offence, I consider the Visa Applicant's offending raises serious character concerns of the kind which engages the community expectation that he would not be granted a visa.
6. Paragraph 8.5(3) of Direction no. 110 further confirms that the stated expectations apply, regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community. In doing so, paragraph 8.5(3) arguably further qualifies the 'norm' expressed in para 8.5(1), which refers to the 'unacceptable risk' of conduct being engaged in. This makes it clear that a 'measureable [sic] risk' of physical harm to the community is not required for the community expectation that the non-citizen not hold a visa to be engaged, where serious character concerns are raised through the person's conduct or offending.
7. This consideration will, in most cases, weigh against granting a visa if that expectation has been breached or if there is an unacceptable risk that it may be breached in the future.
8. The Minister submits that this consideration weighs against granting the visa.[89]
9. The Review Applicant accepts this consideration would weigh in favour of not granting the visa, though they submitted that the less weight should be placed on this consideration noting:[90]

(a) It is plain that any extreme form of Irish nationalism has no axe to grind in Australia. The evidence points to there being low risk of any further offending by [the Visa Applicant] nor have any of the circumstances highlighted by 8.5.2 been engaged in by him;

(b) Aside from his offending conduct for which he was sentenced in 2017, [the Visa Applicant] has been a productive and law-abiding member of the Irish community. Through his actions over a significant period from 2017, he has shown his preferred lifestyle is one in which he is a contributing member of the community;

(c) His offending conduct involved a single course of action, over ten years ago flowing from a particular tragedy in 2014. The offences were unquestionably of a serious nature. However, he has never been charged with any other offences, and there is no history of violence or other concerning conduct in the Republic of Ireland. While [the Visa Applicant] may have breached the expectations of the Australian community, it cannot be said that he has consistently done so, as would be the case for a repeat or multiple offender;

(d) [The Visa Applicant] has sought assistance with respect to his offending and Dr Dewson opined that there is a low risk that he will reoffend;

(e) [He] has a deep and loving relationship with his wife and children, and there will be substantial negative impacts if he cannot come to Australia.

1. I note these issues are considered either under the considerations to which they relate and are taken into account in the ultimate weighing exercise.
2. The Applicant has engaged in conduct raising serious character concerns.
3. I find the Australian community would expect that the Applicant's visa would be refused. Accordingly, the expectation of the Australian community weighs against granting the visa.
4. However, it remains for me to determine the appropriate weight to be given to this consideration and ultimately to balance it against the relevant considerations including the primary and other considerations in the ultimate weighing exercise.
5. Overall, I consider this primary consideration weighs slightly in favour of exercising the discretion to refuse the visa.

(1) In making a decision under section 501(1), 501(2) or 501CA(4), the considerations below must also be taken into account, where relevant, in accordance with the following provisions. These considerations include (but are not limited to):

a) legal consequences of the decision;

b) extent of impediments if removed;

d) impact on Australian business interests

Legal consequences of decision under section 501 or 501CA

1. I am required to consider the legal consequences of a decision on a non-citizen, including having regard to Australia's non-refoulement obligations in respect of unlawful non-citizens.
2. The Minister submitted that the obligation to consider the legal consequences of a decision requires me to consider the 'direct and immediate statutory consequences' of the decision,[91] and that I should avoid speculation as to what might or might not occur in future decision-making.[92] The Minister notes that the consequence of a decision to refuse to grant the visa would be that the Applicant remains offshore, and that the consideration should be neutral.
3. The Review Applicant accepted that as the Visa Applicant was offshore there were no legal consequences from this decision. However, the Review Applicant submitted that if the Visa Applicant were refused the visa this would have to be declared on future visa applications and that would likely result in the Visa Applicant continuing to be refused a visa.
4. I accept that a refusal of a visa would have to be declared on future applications and that the Visa Applicant may be again refused a visa. However, there was no information to suggest that would be a legal consequence of this decision.
5. I afford this consideration neutral weight in the Visa Applicant's case.

1. Paragraph 9.2 of Direction no. 110 provides that the Tribunal must consider the extent to which the Visa Applicant would face an impediment or impediments in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards in their home country, in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country.
2. The Visa Applicant is not currently in Australia. I find that the extent of impediments if removed does not arise in the Visa Applicant's circumstances, given that the decision under review would not result in the Visa Applicant's removal from Australia.
3. Therefore I find that this consideration is neutral.

Decision-makers must consider any impact on Australian business interests if the non-citizen is not allowed to enter or remain in Australia, noting that an employment link would generally only be given weight where the decision under section 501 or 501CA would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia.

1. The Minister submitted that there is no evidence before the Tribunal that the refusal of the applicant's visa will have any impact on Australian business interests.
2. The Review Applicant owns multiple businesses which employ over two hundred people.[93] He gave evidence that 90% of their workforce are Australians, and 30% are First Nations and young people who are referred to them by the Human Excellence Project (THEP), a mental health charity. While the Review Applicant expressed a desire to show the Visa Applicant his businesses it was not suggested that if the visa were refused this would have an impact on the Review Applicant's business/es or his charitable organisation.
3. I find this consideration weighs neither for nor against refusing the visa and afford it neutral weight in the Visa Applicant's circumstances.

1. I have found that the Visa Applicant does not pass the character test under s 501 of the Migration Act, and I must consider whether I should exercise the discretion to refuse the visa, having regard to the primary and relevant other considerations in Direction no. 110, and weighing the various considerations in accordance with paragraph [7] of the Direction, and in accordance with the authorities.
2. I must weigh the various primary and other relevant considerations outlined in Direction no. 110 against each other and undertake an evaluation of whether I should exercise the discretion to refuse the visa.
3. In determining the weight to be applied to each consideration, I have considered all the primary and other relevant considerations and weighed them in light of the evidence and findings and according to the guidance provided by Direction no. 110. I have gone on to compare and balance all of the considerations to determine whether I should exercise the discretion to refuse the visa.
4. The parties agreed that a number of the considerations under Direction No 110 were either not relevant to the Visa Applicant's circumstances or did not weigh for or against excising the discretion and carried neutral weight. This included the primary considerations for family violence and the best interests of minor children, and the other considerations of the legal consequences of the decision, the extent of impediments if removed and Australian business interests. I have afforded those considerations no weight or neutral weight. As such they do not factor in the weighing exercise.
5. I have considered all of the primary considerations, including the protection of the Australian community. I found that the Visa Applicant's offending was serious but that having regard to the nature of the offending and the Visa Applicant's commitment to no longer associating with the IRA, there was a low risk of reoffending, particularly in Australia while on a Visitor visa. I found that the protection of the Australian community weighs in favour of refusing to grant the visa and, having considered the nature and seriousness of the offending and the risk to the Australian community, I afford the consideration slight weight in the Applicant's circumstances.
6. While the Visa Applicant has only been to Australia once and has not made a personal contribution to this country, I found that he has close ties through his two sons and their families who will be negatively impacted if the visa is refused. I find the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia weigh in favour of not exercising the discretion to refuse the visa. I afford strong weight to that consideration in the Applicant's case.
7. The Visa Applicant has engaged in offending which raised serious character concerns and the expectations of the Australian community weigh in favour of refusing to grant the visa. Having regard to all the circumstances I found this consideration should be afforded slight weight in the Applicant's case.
8. The Visa Applicant's case is finely balanced. He engaged in serious offending in Ireland which, while not an offence in Australia, means he fails the character test. While his conduct would not be an offence here is it nonetheless serious. He has committed to a pro-social future and has not reoffended since his release in 2020. He presents a low risk of offending generally and, in particular, while in Australia on a Visitor visa. However, the serious nature of his offence means the community would expect the visa to be refused. Balanced against this, his sons have bult a life in Australia which they wish to share with their father. Noting the prior family tragedy they faced through the death of their brother and their father's incarceration, the refusal of the visa would have a significant impact on them and their families, noting their commitment to a future in Australia.
9. Having weighed the considerations, and noting the Direction that the primary consideration of the Australian community will generally outweigh other considerations, I find that in this case the primary consideration of the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia outweighs those considerations weighing in favour of exercising the discretion to refuse the visa, being the primary considerations of the protection of the Australian community and the expectations of the Australian community.
10. In summary, having regard to all of the primary considerations, and the relevant other considerations in Direction no. 110, I am satisfied that the discretion to refuse the visa should not be exercised.

1. The decision of a delegate of the Minister dated 30 April 2025 to refuse to grant the Applicant a Visitor (Class FA) (subclass 600) visa is set aside and substituted with a decision not to refuse the grant of the visa under section 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

I certify that the preceding 167 (one hundred and sixty seven) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President Simone Burford

...............................[sgd].........................................

ANNEXURE A - APPLICANT'S CRIMINAL HISTORY AS AN ADULT[94]

Fail to Produce Driver Licence/Learner Permit (within 10 days)

Threatening/Abusive/Insulting Behaviour in a Public Place

[15] Migration Act s 501(6)(e).

[16] Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Cth), Direction no. 110 - Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (21 June 2024) (Direction no. 110).

[19] Direction no. 110 para 6, referring to paras 8 and 9.

[20] ASFIC [4] at Exhibit T1, HB 181.

[21] RSFIC [2] at Exhibit T1, HB 269.

[22] See Migration Act s 501CA(4)(b)(i).

[23] Direction no. 110 para 6, referring to paras 8 and 9.

[26] ASFIC [37] at Exhibit T1, HB 185.

[27] Exhibit T1, HB 192-195, 196-202, 203-222.

[30] RSFIC [55], citing Dr Dewson's report at Exhibit T1, HB 265 [86].

[33] Direction no. 110 para 8.1.1(1)(a).

[34] Direction no. 110 para 8.1.1(1)(d).

[37] RSFIC [35], citing Exhibit T1, HB 53-54.

[38] Direction no. 110 para 8.1.1(1)(a) and 8.1.1(1)(b).

[51] Exhibit T1, HB 319, 320, 323, 324.

[53] Cf Lesianawai v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 6.

[55] Direction no. 110 para 8.1.1(1)(d).

[56] Direction no. 110 para 8.1.2(2)(a) and (b).

[57] See BSJ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1181, at [68] per Moshinsky J; Hambledon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 7, at [41] per Kenny J.

[58] Direction no. 110 para 8.1.2(2)(c).

[59] RRRB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] ARTA 471.

[61] RSFIC [42] at Exhibit T1, HB 276.

[62] Department of Immigration and Border Protection, Standard Q&A Report: Ireland/Spain: CI150513115325439 - Irish Republican Army (IRA) - Real Irish Republican Army (RIRA) - Continuity Irish Republican Army (CIRA) (Standard Q&A Report, 29 May 2015) (Q&A Report 2015).

[64] Department of Home Affairs, Standard Q&A Report: Ireland/Northern Ireland, United Kingdom: 20221017162837 - Law Enforcement/Corruption/Impunity/Judicial independence - State Protection - IRA - Catholic/Protestant Conflict - Mental Health Services (Standard Q&A Report, 8 November 2022) (Q&A Report 2022)

[68] See s 501(6)(b) and Direction No 110, Annexure A, Section 2, para 3.

[69] Direction no. 110 para 8.1.2(2)(b).

[70] ASFIC [27] at Exhibit T1, HB 183-184.

[86] RSFIC [60], [62] at Exhibit T1, HB 280.

[88] RSFIC [65] at Exhibit T1, HB 281.

[89] RSFIC [67] at Exhibit T1, HB 281.

[90] ASFIC [34] at Exhibit T1, HB 184.

[91] ASFIC [71] at Exhibit T1, HB281, citing AJN23 v Minister for Immigration [2024] FCAFC 103 at [33]; NBMZ v Minister for Immigration [2014] FCAFC 38; (2014) 220 FCR 1.

[92] ASFIC [71] at Exhibit T1, HB281, citing Ali v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 650, [33] and DOB18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1523.