FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

Thirdfox

Hogzy wrote: »

Did anyone do the unenumerated rights question. I never thought of approaching it from that angle before. I hope it was correct. Talked a bit about how courts interpret the rights. How it changed from Natural law to Justice prudence and charity. Then i started to waffle a bit.

I talked about how Denning would have loved it - and how instrumental it's been to the development of a wide variety of protections - marital privacy, bodily integrity, privacy of the dignity of the person (and imagine if we hadn't been able to use "in particular" - where would we be today.)

Talked about the need for this doctrine post the ECHR and Charter of fundamental freedoms - yup still need it since it's always nice to have a back up, and our "activist" judges are more considerate nowadays anyway before discovering some "new" right.

Turned the question on its head and said that in some ways the doctrine made our constitutional protections more certain - we are guaranteed to be protected against the tyranny of the majority and the courts have teeth to back up the separation of powers. It is "certain" that if the government were to try and do something intrinsically wrong that our courts will be able to stop them - either through existing rights or via the creation of a new one.

Allows changing of the times etc.

And anyway - judicial subjectivity is present everywhere - what is the meaning of "life"? etc.

JCJCJC wrote: »

Thanks Hogzy. I didn't tackle either of those two, didn't think there was enough caselaw on the right to associate, or in any event I don't know enough.

I was surprised there was no right to privacy question.

Right to privacy could be incorporated into the unenumerated rights doctrine question

JCJCJC

Thirdfox wrote: »

I talked about how Denning would have loved it - and how instrumental it's been to the development of a wide variety of protections - marital privacy, bodily integrity, privacy of the dignity of the person (and imagine if we hadn't been able to use "in particular" - where would we be today.)

Talked about the need for this doctrine post the ECHR and Charter of fundamental freedoms - yup still need it since it's always nice to have a back up, and our "activist" judges are more considerate nowadays anyway before discovering some "new" right.

Turned the question on its head and said that in some ways the doctrine made our constitutional protections more certain - we are guaranteed to be protected against the tyranny of the majority and the courts have teeth to back up the separation of powers. It is "certain" that if the government were to try and do something intrinsically wrong that our courts will be able to stop them - either through existing rights or via the creation of a new one.

Allows changing of the times etc.

And anyway - judicial subjectivity is present everywhere - what is the meaning of "life"? etc.



Right to privacy could be incorporated into the unenumerated rights doctrine question

Sounds like you did a great job on that question - well done.

Dylan123

Just going through the past papers for FMOW & Eu Citizenship:

Q6 April 2008 ...seems like part (1) is the same question as part (111) .. tricky business... just cant get my head around it....

Any ideas on what u def need to know to perhaps scrape a pass in these areas or at least maybe a bit less in the hope of a pick me up in the next ones... the model answers seem to just add to the confusion!!!

perhaps its the fact that the regulations and directives and treaties are saying similar stuff! hard to get any clarity... seems like the question of eu citizenship and fmow are so close and therefore difficult to write a separate answer on them..have been told that its impossible to come close to a model answers due to time constraints..but all we need is a pass

JCJCJC

Anyone willing to venture a guess at the Criminal paper next week - starting to revise it tonight, what is hot? I've devoted a lot of time to constitutional and equity, criminal has taken a back seat until now. What are banker topics?

lucat

Thirdfox wrote: »

I talked about how Denning would have loved it - and how instrumental it's been to the development of a wide variety of protections - marital privacy, bodily integrity, privacy of the dignity of the person (and imagine if we hadn't been able to use "in particular" - where would we be today.)

Talked about the need for this doctrine post the ECHR and Charter of fundamental freedoms - yup still need it since it's always nice to have a back up, and our "activist" judges are more considerate nowadays anyway before discovering some "new" right.

Turned the question on its head and said that in some ways the doctrine made our constitutional protections more certain - we are guaranteed to be protected against the tyranny of the majority and the courts have teeth to back up the separation of powers. It is "certain" that if the government were to try and do something intrinsically wrong that our courts will be able to stop them - either through existing rights or via the creation of a new one.

Allows changing of the times etc.

And anyway - judicial subjectivity is present everywhere - what is the meaning of "life"? etc.



Right to privacy could be incorporated into the unenumerated rights doctrine question

That was my dodgy 5th question- I did most of it in bullet points due to time constraints. I mentioned the rationale in Ryan and how Kenny J used three different principles to support his finding. Natural law, Christian & Democratic Nature of the State and Catholic Social teaching. Then I gave a few examples of how these principles have been inconsistently applied in cases. My ending was very weak, I basically stated that despite it's flaws and potential for inconsistent application, the doctrine was necessary to allow for the development of society and 'human rights' recognition.

Wonder if that'll make a passing grade!

I was wondering did anyone do the Locus Standi Q? I couldn't remember the ratio in Cahill v Sutton but I thought it might have been that 'representational bodies' can sometimes take an action on the rights of 3rd parties. Turns out I was wrong and that was actually SPUC v Grogan. So I might have failed that Q, I'm pretty pissed off about it, I should have noted it more in my study :mad:

And I couldn't advise 'Paul' about hiding his identity in media coverage. What caselaw did everyone put down for that?

JCJCJC

lucat wrote: »

I was wondering did anyone do the Locus Standi Q? I couldn't remember the ratio in Cahill v Sutton but I thought it might have been that 'representational bodies' can sometimes take an action on the rights of 3rd parties. Turns out I was wrong and that was actually SPUC v Grogan. So I might have failed that Q, I'm pretty pissed off about it, I should have noted it more in my study :mad:

And I couldn't advise 'Paul' about hiding his identity in media coverage. What caselaw did everyone put down for that?

I took a similar line, SPUC, Lancefort, Construction Industry Fed., all formed to take cases and all alllowed to bring them, Crotty on his own, Denis Riordan then in the opposite corner whacked with an Isaac Wunder order to stay away, various growls about the courts not being the place for the busybody and the crank.

Identity - wasn't there a case involving a lady who contracted an illness from blood from the Transfusion Board which was on that point? I talked abut the competing interests of justice being done in public versus the risk of it not being done at all, the statutory ones like rape, minors, family law and the judge's discretion otherwse, that sort of waffle.

Hogzy

JCJCJC wrote: »

Anyone willing to venture a guess at the Criminal paper next week - starting to revise it tonight, what is hot? I've devoted a lot of time to constitutional and equity, criminal has taken a back seat until now. What are banker topics?

Just looking over my manual for criminal.

The key areas that CANNOT under ANY circumstances be left out are:

Defenses (absoulte guaranteed minimum of one question)
Offenses against property
Offenses against the person
Elements of a Crime - Strict Liability, Omissions, Causation, Criminal negligence
Public Order Offenses
Incohate Offenses.
Characteristics of a Crime (Trial in Due Course of Law) - Comes up nearly every year bar Oct 2006
Complicity - Comes up nearly every year bar Oct 2007

JCJCJC Criminal questions are extremely mixed. They rarely if ever ask a question on just one topic. I would advise doing everything however when i did this paper (and passed) i left out Offenses against the state. Its rarely examined. Offenses against the administration of justice (Perjury and Contempt) hasnt been examined all that much either but its a fairly simple and interesting chapter.

lucat

JCJCJC wrote: »

Identity - wasn't there a case involving a lady who contracted an illness from blood from the Transfusion Board which was on that point? I talked abut the competing interests of justice being done in public versus the risk of it not being done at all, the statutory ones like rape, minors, family law and the judge's discretion otherwse, that sort of waffle.

I did mention that it is unlikely his case could be heard 'in camera' as this is only usually allowed for cases of a sensitive nature- rape/sexual abuse etc. I said that the judge may grant an order prohibiting the press from identifying him, at his discretion. That is all I said for that issue, I had no caselaw to back it up, nothing! A pretty poor answer, but at least I did well on the first half I think!

Did anyone do Q7? In regards to S.17 I said that it may have the effect of negativing the intention of the legislature, per 'Harvey v Minister for Social Welfare'. Did anyone else mention this or was I wrong?

And out of curiosity, what were the issues in Qs 2 and 8?

Also I was wondering- I often just put the name of one of the parties to a case, not necessarily 'SPUC v Grogan', just 'Grogan' for example, if I can't remember the other party. Do you think I'd be heavily penalised for that?

Hogzy

Does anyone else find that with constitutional you could literally be asked on ANYTHING. Even things that you wouldnt have even considered studying. I knew my cases fairly well i have to say. I knew the constitutional princples well. I have studied the bloody course 3 times already so i know i can say that i know it fairly well. Yet everytime i sit the exam i am struggling to use the cases i have studied. I just cant seem to apply the facts of the question to the cases. I dont know what i am going to do if i fail constitutional again.

Dylan123

JCJCJC wrote: »

Anyone willing to venture a guess at the Criminal paper next week - starting to revise it tonight, what is hot? I've devoted a lot of time to constitutional and equity, criminal has taken a back seat until now. What are banker topics?

Just to add to Hoggzy the following tend come up every year twice a year
-Murder
-Manslaughter
-Sexual offences
-Theft and fraud offences

-Define a crime
or
-Classification crime

As Hoggzy says they mix and match in all areas barring two possibly

JCJCJC

lucat wrote: »

And out of curiosity, what were the issues in Qs 2 and 8?

Also I was wondering- I often just put the name of one of the parties to a case, not necessarily 'SPUC v Grogan', just 'Grogan' for example, if I can't remember the other party. Do you think I'd be heavily penalised for that?

Q2 - I thought it was about the right to fair procedures when a constitutional right is at stake. The Dellway case was on the point, EC dwelt a fair bit on it in his UCD lecture. There is no doubt her right was at issue, they had decided to build the facility already. Once they got the permit they would cpo her field. I mentioned Driscoll v Smeltzer where a CPO was overturned on duress grounds but still had some relevance - a CPO has to be procedurally clean. So my conclusion was object to the permit on the grounds that KCC lacked an interest in the land the subject of their application, without prejudice to the next bit which is more important.
A few lines about balancing of rights, nothing is absolute, pro bono publicem the community need landfills and they must go someplace, balance the rights of KCC to discharge the legal obligation to build dumps, fire stations, motorways etc versus the individual property rights
Once a constitutional right is threatened, the right to fair procedures only kicks in when the threat reaches a threshold level. In this case, outright trampling on the right to property and aso incidental damage to the right to earn a living meet the threshold, so the fair procedures light goes green, no threshold difficulty. Next, you look at the trespass and the procedures. KCC have a right to CPO the land, in a matter in which they have an interest. Direct conflict with nemo judex in sua causa, a fundamental of fair procedures, No appeal, no submission process etc - unlike planning where you have An Bord Pleanala to second-guess the Co Co and the High Court to deal with a point of law or a procedural screw-up by either, per O'Keeffe, Medows, and Egan v BP [2011] which went up on bailii on wednesday ;-)

So her main attack is on the constitutionality of an act which purports to vest KCC with a power to override her constitutional rights without due process and fair procedures, bias on the part of kcc due to the fact that it is pre-decided that this is going ahead, lack of any appeal mechanism - Hygiea [2010] and a few other side-shows.

My biggest problem was, if she can't afford a pro to do her permit objection, how is she going to afford to mount a constitutional challenge? I couldn't see any way around that one, I stopped there. I could hardly put down that I'd advise her to look for a no-foal-no-fee lawyer - there's bound to be quite a few in Kerry, could I?

That was my approach, might be all wrong.

I wasn't great on Q8 at all - last question I did, but I thought it concerned retrospective legislation, punishing conduct that was lawful on the day it occurred etc., discriminatory tax on property, ie money from one source. and the SUV one probably barely ok if justified on legit public policy grounds such as tax on luxury goods, environmental damage, economics - import reduction, etc, Courts won't second-guess economic matters, Dellway, McCarthy etc, that sort of line?

fe1sagain

Dylan123 wrote: »

Just going through the past papers for FMOW & Eu Citizenship:

Q6 April 2008 ...seems like part (1) is the same question as part (111) .. tricky business... just cant get my head around it....

Any ideas on what u def need to know to perhaps scrape a pass in these areas or at least maybe a bit less in the hope of a pick me up in the next ones... the model answers seem to just add to the confusion!!!

perhaps its the fact that the regulations and directives and treaties are saying similar stuff! hard to get any clarity... seems like the question of eu citizenship and fmow are so close and therefore difficult to write a separate answer on them..have been told that its impossible to come close to a model answers due to time constraints..but all we need is a pass

yeh this exam is really tough for time.

Had a look at past paper - part (i) looks like definition of a worker and Steyman case. Deal with whether she is a worker then how Dir 2004/38 doesnt allow discrimination against union citizens for social advantages such as educational grants if worker and case law.
Part (iii) - family under Dir and entitlement to allowance as fam member of worker. Dont know what the last bit is about?

Anyone know if i am close with the issues in the q?

What are people studying for EU? Im hoping to get 5 qs out of
Fundamental Rights, Proportionality/Subsidarity, Direct Effect/Supremacy, Member State Liability, Art 263, Art 267, Infringe Proceedings, Freedoms except Capital, Citizenship, Art 101 and 102.

Eliste

JCJCJC wrote: »

I wasn't great on Q8 at all - last question I did, but I thought it concerned retrospective legislation, punishing conduct that was lawful on the day it occurred etc., discriminatory tax on property, ie money from one source. and the SUV one probably barely ok if justified on legit public policy grounds such as tax on luxury goods, environmental damage, economics - import reduction, etc, Courts won't second-guess economic matters, Dellway, McCarthy etc, that sort of line?

Wasn't it also about locus standi? I mean, it was a pressure group, not an individual trying to assert property rights in the section 4&5 of the imaginary act.

JCJCJC

Eliste wrote: »

Wasn't it also about locus standi? I mean, it was a pressure group, not an individual trying to assert property rights in the section 4&5 of the imaginary act.

quite correct, as I said I was bad on that one.

JCJCJC

This board is very quiet tonight, I suppose everyone is wrecked after the week.

Words of warning for those planning to stay in the Ibis -
1) the teabags in the bedrooms are absolutely vile, no brand on them, the tea from them is awful so bring your own Barry's from home if you intend making a mugga in the room while you study
2) The teabags at breakfast are Lyons's, not much better
3) The pint of Guinness is €4.75 which is high for the country boys, and it is poor enough - pulled out of sight all in one go by a non-n and landed up to you with six inches of bubbles still rising
4) The queen-sized bed is only mighty, the queen must be a big woman if she needs that much room to turn ;-) God save the king.

Other than that, it's fine, quiet room, great shower pressure, everything very clean, all you can eat for breakfast, the 10-min walk to the 'Cow isn't intuitive, go over the suspension bridge and across the Luas station car park, under the tunnel where the Luas goes.

JC

Thirdfox

JCJCJC wrote: »

I took a similar line, SPUC, Lancefort, Construction Industry Fed., all formed to take cases and all alllowed to bring them, Crotty on his own, Denis Riordan then in the opposite corner whacked with an Isaac Wunder order to stay away, various growls about the courts not being the place for the busybody and the crank.

Identity - wasn't there a case involving a lady who contracted an illness from blood from the Transfusion Board which was on that point? I talked abut the competing interests of justice being done in public versus the risk of it not being done at all, the statutory ones like rape, minors, family law and the judge's discretion otherwse, that sort of waffle.

Did you address the issue of the 2011 Criminal act as opposed to the 2010 arrest?

JCJCJC

Thirdfox wrote: »

Did you address the issue of the 2011 Criminal act as opposed to the 2010 arrest?

It doesn't say he was arrested in 2010. It says he was arrested after a broadcast in Dec 2010. The Act could have come into force before his arrest.

Thirdfox

JCJCJC wrote: »

It doesn't say he was arrested in 2010. It says he was arrested after a broadcast in Dec 2010. The Act could have come into force before his arrest.

Yes but this means that the act that he was arrested for must have occurred before December 2010 (logically). Thus the Corporate Crime Act 2011 cannot be used to prosecute for an action that wasn't a crime prior to the enaction of the 2011 Act. (or as I stated in my answer they should have used s.297 of the Companies Act 1963 for fraudulent trading instead).

JCJCJC

Thirdfox wrote: »

Yes but this means that the act that he was arrested for must have occurred before December 2010 (logically). Thus the Corporate Crime Act 2011 cannot be used to prosecute for an action that wasn't a crime prior to the enaction of the 2011 Act. (or as I stated in my answer they should have used s.297 of the Companies Act 1963 for fraudulent trading instead).

You could validly read it both ways. The broadcast can be read simply to cover conduct before the broadcast. The arrest may cover conduct between the enactment of the 2011 act and the arrest. It's still possible that he was legitimately arrested if he carried on with the same conduct as alleged, post- the broadcast and after the enactment. You do make an absolutely good point though, it is very valid. I was a bit carried away I suppose with EC's UCD lecture because he covered stopping trials a fair bit, but you were asked about stopping the trial as distinct from the chances of conviction, different issue.

Dylan123

JCJCJC wrote: »

Anyone willing to venture a guess at the Criminal paper next week - starting to revise it tonight, what is hot? I've devoted a lot of time to constitutional and equity, criminal has taken a back seat until now. What are banker topics?

Oct 2010
Q1 Def crime classification offence - however the examiner was really looking for the diference between and indictable and summary offence.

Also they throw a bit of everything in together just to keep us on our toes:
For example q2 oct 2010: Juicy - 11 issues/ areas in 1 question
-Inchoate: conspiracy
-Burglary
-Complicity: Common design
-False imprisonment
-Causation
-Manslaughter

Watch out for inchoate, complicity. see q2 Oct 2009


Then there was a specific question on incitement and defence of necessity... Oct 2010... so.........

moppet

can anyone help with topics tipped?

steph86

JCJCJC wrote: »

This board is very quiet tonight, I suppose everyone is wrecked after the week.

Words of warning for those planning to stay in the Ibis -
1) the teabags in the bedrooms are absolutely vile, no brand on them, the tea from them is awful so bring your own Barry's from home if you intend making a mugga in the room while you study
2) The teabags at breakfast are Lyons's, not much better
3) The pint of Guinness is €4.75 which is high for the country boys, and it is poor enough - pulled out of sight all in one go by a non-n and landed up to you with six inches of bubbles still rising
4) The queen-sized bed is only mighty, the queen must be a big woman if she needs that much room to turn ;-) God save the king.

Other than that, it's fine, quiet room, great shower pressure, everything very clean, all you can eat for breakfast, the 10-min walk to the 'Cow isn't intuitive, go over the suspension bridge and across the Luas station car park, under the tunnel where the Luas goes.

JC

Hey
Yeh i found that out about the tea too. im down for three nights next week so i'll def be bringing my own teabags and some snack bars for the room. i thought the hotel was fine. rooms are basic but clean. i couldnt believe how quiet they were tho. I live in donegal and there really is some difference in the price. I got soup and sandwich and it was €13. i nearly died. the walk to the red cow is grand tbh i needed the walk to waken myself up before the exam.
three exams left,this time next week we'll all be finished. wooohoo!

RE eu
I'm studying institutions, competences, fundamental rights, A.267, direct effect, fmog,fmow(inc fmoe,fmps and citizenship) im gonna briefly go over A101 and 102 for a back up.

T.Watson

Hey all, hope the exams are going ok for everyone so far. I have what is probably a beyond stupid question but I'm having a bit of meltdown this morning so I figured I'd go and ask some people in the know!

Ok here goes - my really stupid question relates to Private International Law and Brussels I Regulation (Council Reg 44/2001). I can't find it in the Blackstones treaties/legislation book! Same problem for Brussels IIbis. Does anyone know if it's in the book in which case I'm just being a tool stressing because I can't find it to tab it?

Tabbing is driving me crazy. No beer and no tv make homer something something...

Thanks

hession.law

Does anyone know of prosed legislation requiring translating of all essential documents of a criminal trail in another member state in to the language of the accused?

To answer the previous psot the Brussels reg aren't in any blackstones, justgot to learn it off

Kamilat

Can anyone tell me the issues arising in Q2 September 2010 in Contract... Am I correct in thinking its on certainty of terms/intention to create legal relations/estoppel? head is wrecked with it...

JCJCJC

Kamilat wrote: »

Can anyone tell me the issues arising in Q2 September 2010 in Contract... Am I correct in thinking its on certainty of terms/intention to create legal relations/estoppel? head is wrecked with it...

I did that question in that exam. Read Dakota Packaging v Wyeth in the Supreme Court - it's all there. A whole series of mini-contracts doesn't make one big over-reaching contract. If you don't have the basics, offer + acceptance = agreement, agreement + consideration = contract, you don't have a contract. The HC judge in Dakota went the other way so you could be forgiven, but the Supreme Court settled it.

from the case:

...Quite clearly, therefore, there must be a contract before a term can be implied. Peart J, having determined that there was no contract of the relevant type, was not entitled to infer or imply any term. His refinement of the dictum of Murphy J was not justified. There must be a contract....

...I would allow the appeal and substitute for the judgment of the High Court an order that, there being no agreement, the appellant was not required to give the Respondent reasonable notice of termination of the trading relationship between the parties.

I've said it here before and not everybody agrees - the contract problems follow one major case and if you know that case you have a slam-dunk. Advise your client that she's up the creek. Package your answer with a bit of prose about the essential ingredients of a contract, formation, offer and acceptance, but the core of it is - Dakota.

Kamilat

JCJCJC wrote: »

I did that question in that exam. Read Dakota Packaging v Wyeth in the Supreme Court - it's all there. A whole series of mini-contracts doesn't make one big over-reaching contract. If you don't have the basics, offer + acceptance = agreement, agreement + consideration = contract, you don't have a contract. The HC judge in Dakota went the other way so you could be forgiven, but the Supreme Court settled it.

from the case:

...Quite clearly, therefore, there must be a contract before a term can be implied. Peart J, having determined that there was no contract of the relevant type, was not entitled to infer or imply any term. His refinement of the dictum of Murphy J was not justified. There must be a contract....

...I would allow the appeal and substitute for the judgment of the High Court an order that, there being no agreement, the appellant was not required to give the Respondent reasonable notice of termination of the trading relationship between the parties.

I've said it here before and not everybody agrees - the contract problems follow one major case and if you know that case you have a slam-dunk. Advise your client that she's up the creek. Package your answer with a bit of prose about the essential ingredients of a contract, formation, offer and acceptance, but the core of it is - Dakota.

Genius! thanks a mil for that, I get it now! I think you are right about the problem questions being based on case law, I just find it hard knowing all the case law. thanks again!

Dylan123

Any must know info deduced from the lcra 2009: cant think of much at the minute and only have time for criminal... except the night before Property
-Co-ownership
-Mortgages
-Easement
-Covenants

The clock is ticking faster and faster!! or is that an illusion

I take it the lclra 2009 - has no relevance to
-Succession
-Adverse possession

Any info would be appreciated

KeepTheFaith

Dyla123 there have been substantial changes to the first 4 areas you mentioned, your best bet would be to download the explanatory memorandum and get it from there it really isn't that long! But I think you're right in saying there are no changes in AP or Succession.

Does anyone know where I could get a decent Article on Treasure Trove? The new examiner seems fond of it but my Independent Manual doesn't deal with it and I don't have access to any textbooks at the moment. Any help greatly appreciated.

Dylan123

Model answer from your college

Would anyone agree that EU is by far the most technical of the exams