FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

JCJCJC

Hi Guys, I'd like your opinions and comments on this please:

Q5. Spring 2011 (pt)
Paul has been charged with "reckless and fraudulent trading" under the Corporate Crime Act 2011. His arrest occurred after a television documentary was broadcast in December 2010 in which a former partner in his stockbroking firm accused him of gambling pensioners' money on crazy stocks and shares".
Paul has pleaded not guilty to the charge. He is apprehensive that the media attention might influence potential jurors at his trial which is due to take place in July 2011. He wants to know if he might have his trial stopped on this basis.

At first glance, you'd think that was straightforward A38.1, trial in due course of law, pre-trial publicity and an ass-load of caselaw all the way from Haughey to Rattigan. But, look at the dates. If his partner was bitchin' in Dec 2010, the complained-of conduct must have been prior to that. He is being charged under a 2011 Act for 2010 conduct - that raises 15.5.1 and the prohibition on retroactive penal legislation.

What is the question about then? In his report, the examiner says A38.1 and A 34.1 but the dates issue is bugging me.

(There was another part to the question as well.)

All obs welcome.

garethj

JCJCJC wrote: »

Hi Guys, I'd like your opinions and comments on this please:

Q5. Spring 2011 (pt)
Paul has been charged with "reckless and fraudulent trading" under the Corporate Crime Act 2011. His arrest occurred after a television documentary was broadcast in December 2010 in which a former partner in his stockbroking firm accused him of gambling pensioners' money on crazy stocks and shares".
Paul has pleaded not guilty to the charge. He is apprehensive that the media attention might influence potential jurors at his trial which is due to take place in July 2011. He wants to know if he might have his trial stopped on this basis.

At first glance, you'd think that was straightforward A38.1, trial in due course of law, pre-trial publicity and an ass-load of caselaw all the way from Haughey to Rattigan. But, look at the dates. If his partner was bitchin' in Dec 2010, the complained-of conduct must have been prior to that. He is being charged under a 2011 Act for 2010 conduct - that raises 15.5.1 and the prohibition on retroactive penal legislation.

What is the question about then?

(There was another part to the question as well.)

All obs welcome.

Once again the examiner report is useless - all it mentions is the amount of students who interpreted this question as a good enough reason to recite freedom of expression and defamation law.
The issues he noted the question raised were Articles 34.1 and 38.1 and then the right to privacy and then family rights under both the Constitution and the ECHR.

What is your view? Surely, on the face of it, it would appear that it is an infringement of Article 15.5.1? Would it be possible that the act with which he is charged with under the 2011 act, existed in a similar format under an earlier act? or would that matter?

JCJCJC

garethj wrote: »

Once again the examiner report is useless - all it mentions is the amount of students who interpreted this question as a good enough reason to recite freedom of expression and defamation law.
The issues he noted the question raised were Articles 34.1 and 38.1 and then the right to privacy and then family rights under both the Constitution and the ECHR.

What is your view? Surely, on the face of it, it would appear that it is an infringement of Article 15.5.1? Would it be possible that the act with which he is charged with under the 2011 act, existed in a similar format under an earlier act? or would that matter?

Thanks for considering this. I haven't really a final view. I do wish that when FE1 examiners use non-existent makey-uppy hypothetical legislation the would say so - some do in fairness. I'm just lost, hoping Dr Brian Foley BL will make his usual erudite contribution maybe. If it was all about 34 and 38, then he made an error in his dates, or alternatively he's asking us to assume a post-2011 offence date and state that.
On the second part, I would have stayed out of ECHR - it's a constitutional law exam - I'd have gone for Roe's case, IT v Ireland, Doe's case and the like.

Caoileann

Looking at criminal for the first time tomorrow. I was wondering if like contract the examiner likes to mix topics, or if it is one of those subjects you can cut topics out of comfortably. What topics are people covering for criminal?

One more week and I should be finished writing all my notes, leaving just over 3 weeks to actually cram the information into my head.. oh god I hope that is enough time for four subjects!

frustratedTC

Hey,
wondering if someone could help me with Q8 of the March 2011 paper on easements. From the question I figure that the right to fix pipes in an easement by necessity. My question though is if George is entitled to the easement must he have shown pursuant to S33 of the 2009 Act that he is user as of right for a period of 12 years? or can easements be granted where there has been no user as of right period?

Much appreciate the help!

garethj

JCJCJC wrote: »

Thanks for considering this. I haven't really a final view. I do wish that when FE1 examiners use non-existent makey-uppy hypothetical legislation the would say so - some do in fairness. I'm just lost, hoping Dr Brian Foley BL will make his usual erudite contribution maybe. If it was all about 34 and 38, then he made an error in his dates, or alternatively he's asking us to assume a post-2011 offence date and state that.
On the second part, I would have stayed out of ECHR - it's a constitutional law exam - I'd have gone for Roe's case, IT v Ireland, Doe's case and the like.

Yep I would agree with you on that point that it is indeed a constitutional law exam.

The examiner report however specifically states that amongst others, one issue raised by the question includes "the right to privacy and to respect for private and family life under Article 8 of the ECHR".

Of course this would only be mentioned in passing. Any further developments on whether article 15.5.1 applies?

JCJCJC

garethj wrote: »

Yep I would agree with you on that point that it is indeed a constitutional law exam.

The examiner report however specifically states that amongst others, one issue raised by the question includes "the right to privacy and to respect for private and family life under Article 8 of the ECHR".

Of course this would only be mentioned in passing. Any further developments on whether article 15.5.1 applies?

No developments other than this discussion, I'm cloistered for the next six weeks so I'm meeting no-one who would know anything about it. To me, the A15 issue jumps out of the fact pattern much more obviously than does family life. If you are charged with some criminal matter in Ireland, for example dui, scant regard is paid to your family by the system.
Its a question that, as drafted, risked putting students seriously astray. It would be interesting to see the GCB sample answer for it.

In college (UL) we were always warned that dates appear in a problem question for a reason - always analyse them, and that advice has served me well generally. This might be the exception to the rule.

frustratedTC

criminal he mixes topics for the problem q's, but the essay q's are stand alnoe like characteristics of a crime and are repeated a lot

MoneyMilo

People doing Property - to what extent are you looking at mortgages? Current examiner has only asked a 10 mark Q on Judgment Mortgages in the Spring 2010 paper..

BroadwayBound

I was wondering when we might receive any further information from the law society? Do they send out exam numbers/list of subjects you are sitting or anything closer to the exams? All I have received so far is an acknowledgment of my application.

JCJCJC

BroadwayBound wrote: »

I was wondering when we might receive any further information from the law society? Do they send out exam numbers/list of subjects you are sitting or anything closer to the exams? All I have received so far is an acknowledgment of my application.

They do. About 3 weeks before the exam.

Eyespy

JCJCJC wrote: »

Hi Guys, I'd like your opinions and comments on this please:

Q5. Spring 2011 (pt)
Paul has been charged with "reckless and fraudulent trading" under the Corporate Crime Act 2011. His arrest occurred after a television documentary was broadcast in December 2010 in which a former partner in his stockbroking firm accused him of gambling pensioners' money on crazy stocks and shares".
Paul has pleaded not guilty to the charge. He is apprehensive that the media attention might influence potential jurors at his trial which is due to take place in July 2011. He wants to know if he might have his trial stopped on this basis.

At first glance, you'd think that was straightforward A38.1, trial in due course of law, pre-trial publicity and an ass-load of caselaw all the way from Haughey to Rattigan. But, look at the dates. If his partner was bitchin' in Dec 2010, the complained-of conduct must have been prior to that. He is being charged under a 2011 Act for 2010 conduct - that raises 15.5.1 and the prohibition on retroactive penal legislation.

What is the question about then? In his report, the examiner says A38.1 and A 34.1 but the dates issue is bugging me.

(There was another part to the question as well.)

All obs welcome.

Just out of curiousity JC, what was the other part of the question?

UberStressed

Hey, does anyone have an exam grid for constitutional they could send me? I can swap for exam papers or a couple of examiners reports - you would also have my eternal gratitude and some good karma!

garethj

What topics do people think are looking good to come up here?

I will be studying everything but trying to look at topics more likely to come up?!

At the moment I have the following:
1. Causation
2. Economic Loss
3. Vicarious Liability
4. Occupier's Liability
5. Defective Products
6. Defamation
7. Trespass to the Person

Any thoughts, comments or suggestions?

BroadwayBound

Part two of this weeks lecture- is it freezing at 6 minutes and 5 seconds for anyone else? Just as he's about to give all his predictions so irritating!

Exhausted Angie

BroadwayBound wrote: »

Part two of this weeks lecture- is it freezing at 6 minutes and 5 seconds for anyone else? Just as he's about to give all his predictions so irritating!

So annoying. I just had the same problem. It has happened me before though and I left it and tried it again the next day and it has been fine. Course it would have to happen while watching this lecture!!!

JCJCJC

Eyespy wrote: »

Just out of curiousity JC, what was the other part of the question?

here's the full question

Paul has been charged with "reckless and fraudulent trading" under the Corporate Crime Act 2011. His arrest occurred after a television documentary was broadcast in December 2010 in which a former partner in his stockbroking firm accused him of gambling pensioners' money on crazy stocks and shares".
Paul has pleaded not guilty to the charge. He is apprehensive that the media attention might influence potential jurors at his trial which is due to take place in July 2011. He wants to know if he might have his trial stopped on this basis. Failing that, he also seeks your advice in respect of another issue. Paul's family have suffered from the media attention - particularly his two young children who have been bullied at school. He wants to know if, in the event that his trial goes ahead, the court might restrict press coverage of the trial i.e. by not using his real name - so as to protect his family from further distress.
Advise Paul in relation to both of these issues.

Plenty to write about there, if you know it all, but getting that lot covered in 35 minutes is not easy. The second part had to do with stopping the trial due to potential risk of unfairness and you could say plenty about that - Rattigan's case in the IESC has nailed it down , but the nasty part is bringing ECHR into it...I'm on thin ice there I'm afraid.

Eyespy

JCJCJC wrote: »

here's the full question

Paul has been charged with "reckless and fraudulent trading" under the Corporate Crime Act 2011. His arrest occurred after a television documentary was broadcast in December 2010 in which a former partner in his stockbroking firm accused him of gambling pensioners' money on crazy stocks and shares".
Paul has pleaded not guilty to the charge. He is apprehensive that the media attention might influence potential jurors at his trial which is due to take place in July 2011. He wants to know if he might have his trial stopped on this basis. Failing that, he also seeks your advice in respect of another issue. Paul's family have suffered from the media attention - particularly his two young children who have been bullied at school. He wants to know if, in the event that his trial goes ahead, the court might restrict press coverage of the trial i.e. by not using his real name - so as to protect his family from further distress.
Advise Paul in relation to both of these issues.

Plenty to write about there, if you know it all, but getting that lot covered in 35 minutes is not easy. The second part had to do with stopping the trial due to potential risk of unfairness and you could say plenty about that - Rattigan's case in the IESC has nailed it down , but the nasty part is bringing ECHR into it...I'm on thin ice there I'm afraid.

Hi,

this is only a few thoughts on it at the moment but just bear in mind that I'm souped up on painkillersl with a toothache . I'd look over Murray v Newsgroup Ltd & Ors [2010] IEHC 248 paragraphs 30-38, it covers the right to privacy as protected by Article 8 of the ECHR and cites Van Hannover v Germany, Sciacca v Italy[2006] etc. That should help you tie it up.

With respect to the children's right to privacy M v Drury and Ors [1994] and the Hickey case last year have both touched on this but neither worked out in the childrens favour. In fact in both cases the judges hit out at the other party citing bad behaviour but that was about it. Van Hannover was cited in Hickey but the Kearns P. mentioned that case was of no great assistance to Hickey because in VH the plaintiff was subject to a campaign of harrassment as a public figure whereas Hickey courted the publicity "She has herself made public statements concerning her family life and taken part in photo shoots and interviews for public consumption." However Kearns did stress " As the European Court has repeatedly emphasised, all the circumstances of the individual case have to be taken into account."

I'd probably mention Doe [2008] by summarizing para 4.4 to 4.6 and say that it would unlikely that the courts would allow the constitutional right to privacy override the administration of justice in public. So it would seem that privacy rights under Article 8 might present a more favourable outcome than privacy rights under the Constitution.

The only bloody problem is then do you need to mention to Paul that difficulties may arise with the competing interests between the right to privacy and freedom of expression thus introducing Herrity and another slew of caselaw? Ok, I'd imagine that Herrity would probably be sufficent but you'd nearly have to tell him that if the admin of justice didn't catch him out, freedom of expression might bags up his case.

The mention of Article 15.5.1 frightens me because I know for a fact I would never cover everything in 35 minutes and to be quite honest, because the Corporate Crime Act 2011 is so vague in the question, I wouldn't know where to go with it.

Eyespy

Just wondering what is everyone is planning to cover for the exam?

JCJCJC

Eyespy wrote: »

Just wondering what is everyone is planning to cover for the exam?

I haven't yet done any indepth analysis of grids etc, thinking of doing the GCD intensive revision maybe for that. So far I've covered:
Constitutional interpretation
Sep of powers
AG & president
Property rights
Retrospective legislation
Challenging unconstitutional acts/si's
Trial in due course of law
Fair procedures

That's about it. Plenty more to be done yet.

JC

garethj

JCJCJC wrote: »

I haven't yet done any indepth analysis of grids etc, thinking of doing the GCD intensive revision maybe for that. So far I've covered:
Constitutional interpretation
Sep of powers
AG & president
Property rights
Retrospective legislation
Challenging unconstitutional acts/si's
Trial in due course of law
Fair procedures

That's about it. Plenty more to be done yet.

JC

Pretty much the same. The only one that I would be including that isn't on that list is equality. Really think (hope) that will come up.

lablab

Hi all

Adrenalin beginning to kick in now!!

Can anyone send me a IC exam grid for EU law? I have the griffith one but its about 8 pages long!!!

I can swap the contract and company exam grid if anyone wants to trade.

PRETTY PLEASE???

Tks

Caoileann

Would I be crazy to leave resulting trusts out? What topics are you studying?

Amy.M

Would anyone happen to have any sample answers for property, equity, criminal or tort??

i have extensive lecture notes on property and sample answers for contract and company that I would be able to swap?! Anything would be of great help!! I also have grids for constitutional, equity, criminal, company and contract if these interest anyone to swap

Anyone else doing equity, property, tort, contract or criminal? how are you finding the studying?

JCJCJC

Eyespy wrote: »

Hi,

this is only a few thoughts on it at the moment but just bear in mind that I'm souped up on painkillersl with a toothache . I'd look over Murray v Newsgroup Ltd & Ors [2010] IEHC 248 paragraphs 30-38, it covers the right to privacy as protected by Article 8 of the ECHR and cites Van Hannover v Germany, Sciacca v Italy[2006] etc. That should help you tie it up.

The mention of Article 15.5.1 frightens me ..Corporate Crime Act 2011 is so vague in the question, I wouldn't know where to go with it.

I've found an article by H Delaney on Westlaw re retrospective legislation. She cites Dublin Heating Co v Hefferon [1992] ILRM 51. That case concerned an attempt to criminalise reckless trading post-facto. I'm increasingly certain the question was really about the constitutionality of retrospective legislation and that is what the best advice to the client should be about. The client can come in the door saying he wants the trial stopped for ABC reason, but what does that matter? It seems to me that any solr could say you have much better legal grounds on XYZ reason. Publicity might only get you postponement for a fade period, nuke the act under A15 and you have killed off the matter for ever, the only people who'll ever know your name will be law students and they don't count for much.

It was an A15 question.

JC

frustratedTC

Hey help needed if any1 can help!
So under S218 of the 1963 Act if a fraudulent preference is made the disposition is invalid, does that mean then that it goes back into the available distributable funds of the company for the liquidator to distribute?

Als where pressure is found to have been exerted then theres no fraudulent preference, so how does the liquidator get the money back off the creditor who pressurised the company?

Thanks a mill

Orla FitzP

What's peoples opinion on bringing in blackstones for EU?? Do u really need it or is it like a safety thing ??

smjsmj

yeh def take it into the exam with you. was a great help to me in the march sitting.

Chopper888

Would I be covered for the property exam with the following topics:

Treasure Trove
Succession
Adverse Possession
Licences
Family Property
Easements
Co Ownership
Landlord Tenant Law
Mortgages

garethj

Chopper888 wrote: »

Would I be covered for the property exam with the following topics:

Treasure Trove
Succession
Adverse Possession
Licences
Family Property
Easements
Co Ownership
Landlord Tenant Law
Mortgages

More than adequately!