Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Guys any predictions from Indo or Griffith for eu yet? What a nasty subject! I'd sit constitutional a hundred times over instead!
Im the complete opposite. Passed EU twice in a row (Didnt pass 3 the first time), and iv failed constitutional 3 times. Id gladly sit your EU if you sit my constitutional
0 -
-
-
Would anybody be able to give me a quick summary of the facts in DPP -v- Douglas & Hayes [1985] please?
Hi JC, I've only got a really, really brief summary but it's from Mullen and McIntyres' essential law text 2006.
The defendants in the course of a robbery opened fire on a garda car, hitting it with 3 bullets. They were charged with shooting with intent to commit murder and were convicted by the Special Criminal Court on the basis that:
"It must have been apparent that the natural consequence of the shooting would be to cause death or serious personal injury to one or more of the guards in the car and secondly, the person who fired the shots did so with reckless disregard of killing a guard and in the legal sense, he had the intent to commit murder. It is not necessary to constitute the intent to kill that that should be the desired outcome of what was done. It is sufficent if it is a likely outcome and that the act is done with reckless disregard of the outcome."
And this is taken from page 48-9 of the Law Reform Commission Report on Murder and Involuntary Manslaughter LRC 87-2008, although from the Court of Criminal Appeal.
2.25 In The People (DPP) v Douglas and Hayes29 the Court of
Criminal Appeal briefly considered the meaning of “intention”. The Court’s
remarks in relation to murder are, strictly speaking, obiter as the defendant
was charged with “shooting with intent to commit murder” contrary to
section 14 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The appellants
argued that the Special Criminal Court did not consider the matter of an
intention to commit murder on the proper basis. It was submitted that the
court relied on the following propositions30:
• if someone had actually been killed, the appellants would have been
guilty of murder and were thus guilty of an intent to murder;
• that an intention to murder would be established if it were shown
that it must have been apparent to the appellants that the natural
consequence of the shooting would be to cause death or serious
personal injury to one or more of the guards;
• that an act done with reckless disregard of the risk of killing is done
with an intent to murder;
• that it is not necessary to establish an intention to kill that such
death should be the desired outcome, but that it need only be a
likely outcome; and
• that the act was done with reckless disregard of that outcome.
2.26 The Court of Criminal Appeal observed that unless an accused has
actually expressed an intent to kill, his intent can only be ascertained from a
consideration of his actions and the surrounding circumstances.31 Regarding
proof of intention, a general principle has evolved so that an accused is taken
to intend the natural and probable consequences of his/her own acts. The
29 [1985] ILRM 25.
30 Ibid at 26.
31 Ibid at 27.
33
Court referred to the 41st edition of Archbold where it is stated that in law a
man intends the consequences of his voluntary act when he foresees that it
will probably happen, whether he desires it or not.32
2.27 The Court considered that English decisions on the meaning of
intention in the context of murder were applicable to section 14. The Court
held that foresight and recklessness could not be equated with intention,
although they might, in certain circumstances, be evidence from which an
inference of intention could be drawn. In summarising the law on intention,
the Court stated:
“In the circumstances of any particular case evidence of the fact
that a reasonable man would have foreseen that the natural and
probable consequence of the acts of an accused was to cause death
and evidence of the fact that the accused was reckless as to
whether his acts would cause death or not is evidence from which
an inference of intent to cause death may or should be drawn, but
the court must consider whether either or both of these facts do
establish beyond a reasonable doubt an actual intention to cause
death… ”33
2.28 The Court of Criminal Appeal proceeded to state that death need
not be the desired outcome of an accused’s act in order to constitute an
intention to kill.34 However, a reckless disregard of the likely outcome is not
of itself proof of an intention to kill, but is merely one of the facts to be
considered in deciding whether the correct inference is that the accused
intended to kill.35
Hope it helps a bit
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Guys any predictions from Indo or Griffith for eu yet? What a nasty subject! I'd sit constitutional a hundred times over instead!
Im the complete opposite. Passed EU twice in a row (Didnt pass 3 the first time), and iv failed constitutional 3 times. Id gladly sit your EU if you sit my constitutional
honestly I'd do it in a heartbeat if we were allowed do so. Any tips for eu then? Did u get the constitutional in the end?0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
The people in the prep colleges make a professional living from studying the FE1 papers, and to the extent that there is a a pattern, if at all, they have analysed and identified it. As practising barristers which most or all of them are, they are well used to presentlng cases in different ways to suit the judges they may draw - what flies before one judge will irritate another, etc. That developed intuitive skill is being brought to bear on the FE1 exams - it may not be a precise mathematical science, but it's a good starting point.
They make their money from convincing you that you're getting something valuable in return for your cash. So it suits them to give predictions as if there's some inside line that isnt availably in the shops and that only they (and you for 9.99 plus postage) can get.
It may or may not be worth doing but when the examiners are warning about it, it would lead me to think that there are serious risks involved in relying on it.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Civil partners now have the same rights as spouses, courtesy of the 2010 act, with regard to legal right share (s111 of the 1965 Succession Act as amended) and the appropriation of the dwelling place (s56 of the 1965 Succession act as amended). The latest editions of Wylie and Lyall are very good on the impact of the 2010 Civil Partners (title is way too long to type here;)) Act on succession.
He's talking Property in the context of constitutional law
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement