FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

_JOE_

JCJCJC wrote: »

If I had it all to do all over again, or if I was advising an undergrad, I would say

1) do the FE1s while you are in college, begin in 2nd yr and be finished in 4th yr, could save you a lot of time and you won't have the stuff forgotten. It can be done, just sit the general knowledge exam in Blackhall.
2) Do Equity, Tort, Contract and Property together, do Constitutional and Criminal together, do Company and EU whenever you like but the first two groups complement each other.

A 2.1 degree with the FE1s passed will earn a paycheck sooner than a 1.1 with no FE1s tackled at all...

I think the above mentioned route is really only an option if you're a little older starting college...For example, I had already finished my undergrad in law by the time I had reached 21, therefore I would have derived no benefit...

On the other hand, I think it's a route that many should consider if available...things are getting a lot tougher, and there's a lot of pressure when you finish up your degree to tackle these exams early...and as we have seen in the last few years, it's getting a lot tougher to see light at the end of the tunnel...with the

T.Watson

Would anyone happen to know the main points/issues you'd need to raise in an answer to EU Law exam question 6 in Sept 2010 sitting (it's in 3 parts and the ii and iii parts have me fairly confused)? One minute I think I understand FMOG, F of E etc. and then when it comes to applying it and distinguishing between the different bits in actual problem questions I don't know anything.

In another semi-rant...if I'd a euro for everytime in EU something is "absolutely prohibited" and then one line later "but there are limited exceptions/exemptions". F**ks me off altogether.

Dylan123

I am not doing any more EU till the day before.. but from recollection the key is in the question... the questions seem to be very close in the areas asked but u must look out for words that distinguish (perhaps 1 word) a citizenship issue to a free movement.. i think they word the questions very closely to put us under more pressure.. For example 1 question mentions grants twice.. however the point is one is looking at fmow and the other citizenship...

The treaties/ directives and renumbering make it a complete mess... i dont think it is that complex at all... however they have made a complete mess of it...in terms of student learning... there is very little clarity...

fe1sagain

T.Watson wrote: »

Would anyone happen to know the main points/issues you'd need to raise in an answer to EU Law exam question 6 in Sept 2010 sitting (it's in 3 parts and the ii and iii parts have me fairly confused)? One minute I think I understand FMOG, F of E etc. and then when it comes to applying it and distinguishing between the different bits in actual problem questions I don't know anything.

In another semi-rant...if I'd a euro for everytime in EU something is "absolutely prohibited" and then one line later "but there are limited exceptions/exemptions". F**ks me off altogether.

What is the issue in part (i)? Is it Art 110(1) internal tax system discriminating against similar goods.

Part (ii) is freedom of establishment for phamacist. provision is a restriction under art 49. can it be justified though due to protection of consumers as profit margins influencing advice. is justification proportionate.

Part (iii) is freedom to provide services

Was looking at Question 5 2010 part (i) and (ii) there just seems to be so much detail to go through in coming to an answer. Part (i) asks whether X can rely on directive - direct effect, but also asks if can get reimbursement....is this member state liability or just simply the net effect of relying on the directive?

ally10

oh mother of god..these FE's are just a nightmare! eu is a waste!! i have over 20 essays/possible prob q's written out..not a chance i will remember them!! was in an exam last week was looking around and everyone seems much older than me..im only 20..there are people in there 30's who prob hav loads of experience and loads of legal knowledge..thinking maybe i shud try these at a later stage!! anything to avoid them!!

randomchild

ally10 wrote: »

oh mother of god..these FE's are just a nightmare! eu is a waste!! i have over 20 essays/possible prob q's written out..not a chance i will remember them!! was in an exam last week was looking around and everyone seems much older than me..im only 20..there are people in there 30's who prob hav loads of experience and loads of legal knowledge..thinking maybe i shud try these at a later stage!! anything to avoid them!!

Calm down and working yourself into a panic is not going to help. The key to these exams is not remembering every single essay you ever wrote. Once you understand the key legal points that underpin those essays you will do fine. Yes there are people who have previous legal experience doing these exams, but many of the subjects they encounter in these exams (such as EU law) can be completely outside their area of expertise. Just do your best, relax and hey, your only 20, you all the time in the world to get through these exams, don't let them get in the way of enjoying life!

JCJCJC

ally10 wrote: »

oh mother of god..these FE's are just a nightmare! eu is a waste!! i have over 20 essays/possible prob q's written out..not a chance i will remember them!! was in an exam last week was looking around and everyone seems much older than me..im only 20..there are people in there 30's who prob hav loads of experience and loads of legal knowledge..thinking maybe i shud try these at a later stage!! anything to avoid them!!

Well I'm definitely one of the older dudes doing this, and there are days when I think I have Alzheimer's I forget so much. I graduated in 2007 and I'm staggered by how much new stuff there is now in nearly every subject, EU, Property, Criminal, Constitutional to say the least. Practical legal experience isn't as useful for exams as you might think - I have been in every court except the Court of Criminal Appeal, hundreds of times in the District Court, dozens in the circuit court, a fair few in the High Court and once in the Supreme Court, and apart from the fact that you'll remember the case that was running on the day, unless it's a ground-breaking one you won't learn anything examinable. Every recently-qualified solicitor I know says that the FE1 material isn't relevant on a day-to-day basis.
For instance, I have seen several adverse possession cases in the Circuit Court because of the valuation-based jurisdiction, and none of them are any use at all in an exam because they aren't reported, and barristers don't normally embark on lengthy and detailed traverses of the law that you could be noting down, because the judge will say he knows it. The late Judge Seanie O'Leary RIP used to say 'don't tell me the law - I know the law - just tell me the facts'.
So chillax, if you're as organised as your post suggests you'll be fine.

Dylan123

Not the most popular topic of discussion however: It has to be asked for exam purposes.

I cant see the logic here.

What happens if a 15 or 14 year boy sleeps with his 15 or 14 year old girl friend and the girls parents find out a go ballistic. The law does state he can be prosecuted under s2 or 3 CRIMINAL LAW (SEXUAL OFFENCES) ACT 2006? (even if she consented) why should he be prosecuted and why not her?? or in reality would the dpp tell the parents to take a long walk of a short peer?

Or does it really bear any relevance to the fe1's...and if it doesnt it does not matter..

I know the law states the "offender" wont go on the register if less than 2 yrs older... just think this is an area easy to catch people out in the exam??

-Just found the answer under s9 - "no proceeding will be brought on a person under 17".... however if they were ... i expect it would be the boy not the girl who would be prosecuted or cautioned??

ally10

randomchild wrote: »

Calm down and working yourself into a panic is not going to help. The key to these exams is not remembering every single essay you ever wrote. Once you understand the key legal points that underpin those essays you will do fine. Yes there are people who have previous legal experience doing these exams, but many of the subjects they encounter in these exams (such as EU law) can be completely outside their area of expertise. Just do your best, relax and hey, your only 20, you all the time in the world to get through these exams, don't let them get in the way of enjoying life![/QUOTE


Thanks for that, I was just reading over EU there after I calmed down and its bad but it is manageable, so hopefully the paper will be nice finger crossed, i failed EU last time..lets hope it wont be a 2nd!!

ally10

JCJCJC wrote: »

Well I'm definitely one of the older dudes doing this, and there are days when I think I have Alzheimer's I forget so much. I graduated in 2007 and I'm staggered by how much new stuff there is now in nearly every subject, EU, Property, Criminal, Constitutional to say the least. Practical legal experience isn't as useful for exams as you might think - I have been in every court except the Court of Criminal Appeal, hundreds of times in the District Court, dozens in the circuit court, a fair few in the High Court and once in the Supreme Court, and apart from the fact that you'll remember the case that was running on the day, unless it's a ground-breaking one you won't learn anything examinable. Every recently-qualified solicitor I know says that the FE1 material isn't relevant on a day-to-day basis.
For instance, I have seen several adverse possession cases in the Circuit Court because of the valuation-based jurisdiction, and none of them are any use at all in an exam because they aren't reported, and barristers don't normally embark on lengthy and detailed traverses of the law that you could be noting down, because the judge will say he knows it. The late Judge Seanie O'Leary RIP used to say 'don't tell me the law - I know the law - just tell me the facts'.
So chillax, if you're as organised as your post suggests you'll be fine.

Thanks for that...and also for the tips for equity..feel free to predict the EU paper for me!!

JCJCJC

ally10 wrote: »

Thanks for that...and also for the tips for equity..feel free to predict the EU paper for me!!

I can confidently predict that it will be a load of mind-numbing irrelevancy, a paper that will take half-an-hour to read, another half-an-hour to figure out and after that, it's just a matter of working out the details! I have parked EU until next Autumn, not attempting it this time at all. I wouldn't be too confident of my own performance in Equity, I think I put down Palmer instead of Parker for the ascertainable class rule and a few similar idiotic brainfarts like that ;-)

T.Watson

fe1sagain wrote: »

What is the issue in part (i)? Is it Art 110(1) internal tax system discriminating against similar goods.

Part (ii) is freedom of establishment for phamacist. provision is a restriction under art 49. can it be justified though due to protection of consumers as profit margins influencing advice. is justification proportionate.

Part (iii) is freedom to provide services

Was looking at Question 5 2010 part (i) and (ii) there just seems to be so much detail to go through in coming to an answer. Part (i) asks whether X can rely on directive - direct effect, but also asks if can get reimbursement....is this member state liability or just simply the net effect of relying on the directive?

Part (i) is on 'carbon' levy on electricity except doesn't apply to units of electricity generated from renewable sources within the State or rather applies at lesser rate. Funds go towards new wind farm projects in the State. I can't seem to figure out if it's a custom duty/charge or internal tax system. I'm thinking if it's internal tax system then it indirectly discriminates but I'm very confused.

I can't seem to figure out how to apply the distinction between charges that are exempt from Art 30 under services rendered/internal tax/mandatory obligation.

In relation to Q 5, not really sure at all I haven't covered direct effect yet but I'd imagine member state liability is an issue there in relation to damages and if there was a 'substantial breach' or something like that but again I'm completely guessing there!

hession.law

Dylan123 wrote: »

Not the most popular topic of discussion however: It has to be asked for exam purposes.

I cant see the logic here.

What happens if a 15 or 14 year boy sleeps with his 15 or 14 year old girl friend and the girls parents find out a go ballistic. The law does state he can be prosecuted under s2 or 3 CRIMINAL LAW (SEXUAL OFFENCES) ACT 2006? (even if she consented) why should he be prosecuted and why not her?? or in reality would the dpp tell the parents to take a long walk of a short peer?

Or does it really bear any relevance to the fe1's...and if it doesnt it does not matter..

I know the law states the "offender" wont go on the register if less than 2 yrs older... just think this is an area easy to catch people out in the exam??

-Just found the answer under s9 - "no proceeding will be brought on a person under 17".... however if they were ... i expect it would be the boy not the girl who would be prosecuted or cautioned??

As the law stands the logic behind this is the girl runs the risk of becoming pregnant!

hession.law

T.Watson wrote: »

Part (i) is on 'carbon' levy on electricity except doesn't apply to units of electricity generated from renewable sources within the State or rather applies at lesser rate. Funds go towards new wind farm projects in the State. I can't seem to figure out if it's a custom duty/charge or internal tax system. I'm thinking if it's internal tax system then it indirectly discriminates but I'm very confused.

I can't seem to figure out how to apply the distinction between charges that are exempt from Art 30 under services rendered/internal tax/mandatory obligation.

In relation to Q 5, not really sure at all I haven't covered direct effect yet but I'd imagine member state liability is an issue there in relation to damages and if there was a 'substantial breach' or something like that but again I'm completely guessing there!

If this is any help for assessing whether a charge falls under Art 1100 TFEU you need to apply Co Frutta 4 part test. Generally in a question you will assess both Art 30 and Art 110 as a charge cannot be a CD/CEE and a tax under Art110 you must call a shot and given the fact which one it is. I think in that question it couldn't be a tax under Art 110 as it only applied to domestic products thus could not prevail under the protection of Art 110

JCJCJC

hession.law wrote: »

As the law stands the logic behind this is the girl runs the risk of becoming pregnant!

That's just one of the laws of nature, he's looking for the criminal law side of it ;-)

hession.law

JCJCJC wrote: »

That's just one of the laws of nature, he's looking for the criminal law side of it ;-)

Well I know in the example given the DPP would have to consent to the prosecution of the boy but the girl is saved by section 5 of Criminal Law Sexual Offences Act 2006 states that a girl under 17 shall not be prosecuted for rape but would she be prosecuted for the lesser offence of rape under section 4 Criminal Law Rape Amendment Act 1990 if there were some foreplay beforehand

JCJCJC

hession.law wrote: »

Well I know in the example given the DPP would have to consent to the prosecution of the boy but the girl is saved by section 5 of Criminal Law Sexual Offences Act 2006 states that a girl under 17 shall not be prosecuted for rape but would she be prosecuted for the lesser offence of rape under section 4 Criminal Law Rape Amendment Act 1990 if there were some foreplay beforehand

You seem to be back on the magic mushrooms today don't you! Will you answer his question from your vast encyclopaedic knowledge before he walks off a 'short peer' himself - sounds like member of parliament about five foot high, it seems.

hession.law

JCJCJC wrote: »

You seem to be back on the magic mushrooms today don't you! Will you answer his question from your vast encyclopaedic knowledge before he walks off a 'short peer' himself - sounds like member of parliament about five foot high, it seems.

ok I'l answer it, a woman can never be prosecuted for rape as the she is incaple of the actus reus. Further more the whole thing is moot as never has an FE 1 q touched on the subject!

Dylan123

October 2009
QUESTION FOUR
Advise the Director of Public Prosecutions as to the charges, if any, that
might be brought in ALL of the following cases, referring to appropriate law,
and giving reasons for your advice:

(i) John, who is 17 years of age, had consensual sexual intercourse with
Linda, his 16 year old girlfriend. John knows that Linda is 16 but feels that
he has done nothing wrong since he is in a relationship with her and their
decision to have intercourse was consensual.


anyway i get the picture! time to move on... the clock is ticking.
Just found the model answer and it states yes the boy can be charged with consent of the dpp under s3 or of the 2006 act.. in reality this would never happen unless malice is involved i imagine

Eliste

hession.law wrote: »

ok I'l answer it, a woman can never be prosecuted for rape as the she is incaple of the actus reus. Further more the whole thing is moot as never has an FE 1 q touched on the subject!

Just because it hasn't been asked yet, doesn't mean it won't be if it's on the syllabus!

radioface

Dylan123 wrote: »

October 2009
QUESTION FOUR
Advise the Director of Public Prosecutions as to the charges, if any, that
might be brought in ALL of the following cases, referring to appropriate law,
and giving reasons for your advice:

(i) John, who is 17 years of age, had consensual sexual intercourse with
Linda, his 16 year old girlfriend. John knows that Linda is 16 but feels that
he has done nothing wrong since he is in a relationship with her and their
decision to have intercourse was consensual.

Dunne J.'s judgment of last year might be helpful to you - explains the rationale behind the distinction between males and females under the Act. (Decision is being appealed to Supreme Court)

http://courts.ie/judgments.nsf/6681dee4565ecf2c80256e7e0052005b/87192ea5ed528e7580257749004c8f99?OpenDocument

randomchild

Hey guys quick question re property law and covenants. Does the new act make the rule in tulk and moxay essentially redundant apart from in a scheme of development situation (which is specifically preserved in the new act)?

fe1sagain

hession.law wrote: »

If this is any help for assessing whether a charge falls under Art 1100 TFEU you need to apply Co Frutta 4 part test. Generally in a question you will assess both Art 30 and Art 110 as a charge cannot be a CD/CEE and a tax under Art110 you must call a shot and given the fact which one it is. I think in that question it couldn't be a tax under Art 110 as it only applied to domestic products thus could not prevail under the protection of Art 110

does a pecuniary charge have to be art 30 or 110. Could it be neither? Or is it either Art 30 or 110and the only way it wont infringe EU law is if it comes within an exception?

In part (i) could it not come under art 110(1) as the carbon levy applies to electricity supplied for consumption - both imports and domestic goods subject to levy. the green levy then discriminates against the similar imported goods. Art 110(1) would then apply no?

hession.law

fe1sagain wrote: »

does a pecuniary charge have to be art 30 or 110. Could it be neither? Or is it either Art 30 or 110and the only way it wont infringe EU law is if it comes within an exception?

In part (i) could it not come under art 110(1) as the carbon levy applies to electricity supplied for consumption - both imports and domestic goods subject to levy. the green levy then discriminates against the similar imported goods. Art 110(1) would then apply no?

Well I just read the Q and there is no mention of imported electricity so I would say that Art 110 can't apply as that only prohibits a MS discriminating against imports through its internal tax system. To put a spin on that Q lets Ireland charges tax on a sliding scale for domestically produced electricity and a flat rate for imported then that would be suspect of Art 110.

fe1sagain

hession.law wrote: »

Well I just read the Q and there is no mention of imported electricity so I would say that Art 110 can't apply as that only prohibits a MS discriminating against imports through its internal tax system. To put a spin on that Q lets Ireland charges tax on a sliding scale for domestically produced electricity and a flat rate for imported then that would be suspect of Art 110.

I understand Art 30 and the exceptions, Art 110, the difference between Art 30 and 110 -Michalidis test but I just can't seem to answer a question such as the carbon levy?! It's driving me mad. There isn't enough time to go through Art 30 and 110 in a question such as part (i).....

Should I begin a question with a pecuniary charge by applying Michalidis and then go with one of them as they are mutually exclusive and then determine if it is prohibited by the Art or comes within an exception.

Sorry for the continuous harping on bout the Art30/110 issue....just so stressed

hession.law

fe1sagain wrote: »

I understand Art 30 and the exceptions, Art 110, the difference between Art 30 and 110 -Michalidis test but I just can't seem to answer a question such as the carbon levy?! It's driving me mad. There isn't enough time to go through Art 30 and 110 in a question such as part (i).....

Should I begin a question with a pecuniary charge by applying Michalidis and then go with one of them as they are mutually exclusive and then determine if it is prohibited by the Art or comes within an exception.

Sorry for the continuous harping on bout the Art30/110 issue....just so stressed

The "carbon levy" is just used to throw you, just remember labels are not definitive you must assess from the facts. Unfortunately the examiner wants you to explore both avenues even if only briefly, just let him know that you are aware of them. That would be a good blueprint of an answer.

Hogzy

As a matter of interest what are people covering for Property?

I have covered:

Ownership and Possession
Equity/Doctrine of Notice
Estates In Land - Primarily the Fee Simply and Fee Simple Subject to a condition.
Succession
CoOwnership
Family Property
Licenses
Covenants
Easements and Profits
Adverse Possession.

Half tempted to do mortgages aswell. I regret not doing it a few weeks ago. Are people covering Landlord and tenant law? I studied it back in February but i have been looking over it again and i just couldnt be bothered. Its a huge chapter and has not come up all that much.

I might just cover a Lease v License in case it appears as a short question.

Horndawg

Hogzy wrote: »

As a matter of interest what are people covering for Property?

I have covered:

Ownership and Possession
Equity/Doctrine of Notice
Estates In Land - Primarily the Fee Simply and Fee Simple Subject to a condition.
Succession
CoOwnership
Family Property
Licenses
Covenants
Easements and Profits
Adverse Possession.

Half tempted to do mortgages aswell. I regret not doing it a few weeks ago. Are people covering Landlord and tenant law? I studied it back in February but i have been looking over it again and i just couldnt be bothered. Its a huge chapter and has not come up all that much.

I might just cover a Lease v License in case it appears as a short question.

I've half heartedly read over succession and adverse possession as I absolutely despise the mind numbing tedium that is Property Law, so I'd be very happy with what you've covered if i was you.

Prob just going to read over GCD sample answers for co-ownership, easements and covenants and leave it at that.

bob_lob_law

randomchild wrote: »

Hey guys quick question re property law and covenants. Does the new act make the rule in tulk and moxay essentially redundant apart from in a scheme of development situation (which is specifically preserved in the new act)?

Yeah I think so, I have overruled in s.49(1) written in my notes, can't be arsed looking it up - hope that helps!

Hogzy

bob_lob_law wrote: »

Yeah I think so, I have overruled in s.49(1) written in my notes, can't be arsed looking it up - hope that helps!

hahaha