FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

Denham

Sometimes if find it hard to believe the manuals... s16 nfoap - the father loses the head with the x wife cause she wont let him see his kid because he is an ... and he has not got his **** together! The law states that hes not guilty unless he removes the kid from the jurisdiction? (does that mean the country or the Mothers house) that just cant be right! could someone briefly explain please...

chops018

Denham wrote: »

Sometimes if find it hard to believe the manuals... s16 nfoap - the father loses the head with the x wife cause she wont let him see his kid because he is an asshole and he has not got his **** together! The law states that hes not guilty unless he removes the kid from the jurisdiction? (does that mean the county or the Mothers house) that just cant be right! could someone briefly explain please...

It says in section 16 that the person has to remove the child from the State, so I'm assuming it would mean he has to take him outside the country before this section would kick in. Otherwise he would be guilty under section 17 and removing the person from the lawful control of another.

You seem to be over complicating it.

Section 16 makes it clear they have to be brought outside the State before an action is made. It says in the defences part of that section that he can't have intended to deprive others who have rights to the child, so that would seem to be the mens rea. The actus reus is obvious, and the defences and punishment are set out.

Denham

chops018 wrote: »

It says in section 16 that the person has to remove the child from the State, so I'm assuming it would mean he has to take him outside the country before this section would kick in. Otherwise he would be guilty under section 17 and removing the person from the lawful control of another.

You seem to be over complicating it.

Section 16 makes it clear they have to be brought outside the State before an action is made. It says in the defences part of that section that he can't have intended to deprive others who have rights to the child, so that would seem to be the mens rea. The actus reus is obvious, and the defences and punishment are set out.

thanks - so s17 can apply to a parent too i take it?

chops018

Denham wrote: »

thanks - but i still dont get it!!!the manual clearly states:
s17 is only for a non parent thought eh>? i must be misunderstanding it

Yeah didn't realise that. To be honest just stick to the actus reas and mens rea of the above act and know the defences and punishment and you should be fine.

Basically child abduction is dealt with under section 16 and 17 of the NFOAPA 1997, with s. 16 being for parents who take their child outside of the State without permission, and s. 17 being for other persons.

rickety cricket

Would anyone be able to post any of the prep courses tips for the equity paper?

Denham

chops018 wrote: »

Yeah didn't realise that. To be honest just stick to the actus reas and mens rea of the above act and know the defences and punishment and you should be fine.

Basically child abduction is dealt with under section 16 and 17 of the NFOAPA 1997, with s. 16 being for parents who take their child outside of the State without permission, and s. 17 being for other persons.

Yes thats the key to the exam:
- actus reus
- mens rea
- defence
- sentence
BUT: Its also about spotting the issue. The examiners like to examine areas which are tricky to establish and are confusing. Also its important to understand the law.

Lets take for example the last crim law paper - one question the offence seemed to be one perpetrated against a mentally impaired person - but the question required the reason why the law was on sexual assualt not defilement of a mentally impaired person.. the reason was the act in question was not covered by the legislation for mentally impaired persons and the lrc recommended that this statute should be changed... So detailing the actus reus and mens rea, the sentence and defence for an offence would gain little if no marks at all if its not the right section as one would have missed the point completely.

Caoileann

RandolphEsq wrote: »

Usually I read through the manuals, do my own notes. Then go back over, learn them off, and write short-hand notes. I then, the days before the exam, learn these off and write incredibly shorthand notes.

For equity and constitutional I read through the manuals, did my notes but didn't have time to learn those notes off before I began property prep work. I skipped the learning off and instead just summarised those notes. Today was the first day I spent learning off equity and covered nearly everything. Tomorrow I will be learning off constitutional. Suddenly, after these two days I am confident of getting these exams. I have EU to do on Sunday and Monday and have not even got summaries of my first set of notes done!

My point; do your best and make sure to relax when you are studying. It is far easier to take the stuff in. And make sure to sleep on what you learn off; a good night's sleep before tackling an exam is the equivalent to letting cement dry before walking on a pavement.

You are very motivating! I go about these exams the same way as you- write notes then cut them down. Have that done for equity but still have to do it for const, as well as learning it from scratch! Didn't think it was possible.. I need to get me some ADHD meds!

chops018

Denham wrote: »

Yes thats the key to the exam:
- actus reus
- mens rea
- defence
- sentence
BUT: Its also about spotting the issue. The examiners like to examine areas which are tricky to establish and are confusing. Also its important to understand the law.

Lets take for example the last crim law paper - one question the offence seemed to be one perpetrated against a mentally impaired person - but the question required the reason why the law was on sexual assualt not defilement of a mentally impaired person.. the reason was the act in question was not covered by the legislation for mentally impaired persons and the lrc recommended that this statute should be changed... So detailing the actus reus and mens rea, the sentence and defence for an offence would gain little if no marks at all if its not the right section as one would have missed the point completely.

Yeah I understand that some issues need more detail, but I have heard from many people who have passed the exam that spotting the issue, actus reus, mens rea, defence, sentence, any case law is usually enough. Any more is obviously bonus marks. Problem questions rarely need an inclusion of scholarly articles or stuff from the law reform commission. A problem question is usually supposed to be advising the client as if you were a Solicitor and so the present law and maybe cases to help explain/define something.

banterful

What's the consensus on EU lads, are people covering state aid? Also unsure about whether to do prelim ref procedure...

brian__foley

Denham wrote: »

What the hell happened? let me guess 5 ridiculous questions on niche areas u didnt study?

Just had a look at the exam there, and it seems to be (size aside) one of the more straight-forward contract exams in a long time. Equally, leaving "prediction" aside some key tips paid off. Notably:-

1. Know the examiner. She wrote the LRC report on privity and the privity reform essay was right there.

2. Know the past-papers especially the last paper. The essay on exclusion clauses was word for word the essay the examiner previously set.

3. Never discount the academic angles. The issue with equity and common mistake has been long overdue. Its the only interesting thing on mistake, and here is a new examiner, with keen academic interests examining just that issue.

Overall I thought it was a paper that would really, really have rewarded work and "fe1 style" thinking for that exam (in particular the express requirement to consider not contractual causes of action and rescissionary consequences of "misrepresentation".

It looked like a good paper and, more the point, a paper which we'd been pretty much directly prepping for in its angles and issues.

perfectcircles

brian__foley wrote: »

Denham wrote: »

What the hell happened? let me guess 5 ridiculous questions on niche areas u didnt study?

Just had a look at the exam there, and it seems to be (size aside) one of the more straight-forward contract exams in a long time. Equally, leaving "prediction" aside some key tips paid off. Notably:-

1. Know the examiner. She wrote the LRC report on privity and the privity reform essay was right there.

2. Know the past-papers especially the last paper. The essay on exclusion clauses was word for word the essay the examiner previously set.

3. Never discount the academic angles. The issue with equity and common mistake has been long overdue. Its the only interesting thing on mistake, and here is a new examiner, with keen academic interests examining just that issue.

Overall I thought it was a paper that would really, really have rewarded work and "fe1 style" thinking for that exam (in particular the express requirement to consider not contractual causes of action and rescissionary consequences of "misrepresentation".

It looked like a good paper and, more the point, a paper which we'd been pretty much directly prepping for in its angles and issues.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with you on that, but each to their own I suppose.

I don't think that the exam rewarded fe1 thinking at all. The exams, on the problem questions at least, are about identifying the topics then actually doing the questions. It's not very helpful if questions are unnecessarily long, making it harder to identify the issues, especially when we don't even have 40 minutes for a question! I could be writing in that time!

Red Stripe

brian__foley wrote: »

Just had a look at the exam there, and it seems to be (size aside) one of the more straight-forward contract exams in a long time. Equally, leaving "prediction" aside some key tips paid off. Notably:-

1. Know the examiner. She wrote the LRC report on privity and the privity reform essay was right there.

2. Know the past-papers especially the last paper. The essay on exclusion clauses was word for word the essay the examiner previously set.

3. Never discount the academic angles. The issue with equity and common mistake has been long overdue. Its the only interesting thing on mistake, and here is a new examiner, with keen academic interests examining just that issue.

Overall I thought it was a paper that would really, really have rewarded work and "fe1 style" thinking for that exam (in particular the express requirement to consider not contractual causes of action and rescissionary consequences of "misrepresentation".

It looked like a good paper and, more the point, a paper which we'd been pretty much directly prepping for in its angles and issues.

With respect, I think this offering is a little self-serving.
Worth keeping in mind I think that not all have the time/financial means to avail of 'direct prepping' for angles and issues.

Happychicky7

chops018 wrote: »

Yeah didn't realise that. To be honest just stick to the actus reas and mens rea of the above act and know the defences and punishment and you should be fine.

Basically child abduction is dealt with under section 16 and 17 of the NFOAPA 1997, with s. 16 being for parents who take their child outside of the State without permission, and s. 17 being for other persons.

Im not sure if you have got your answer to this yet but my understanding of S17 is that is it designed to cover situations where the child is abducted by unmarried fathers who do not come under S16 because they are not coniserded legal guardians unless appointed by Court by virtue of their unmarried status...?

sorchauna

Red Stripe wrote: »

With respect, I think this offering is a little self-serving.
Worth keeping in mind I think that not all have the time/financial means to avail of 'direct prepping' for angles and issues.

This was my first sitting and I did not do any course but attempted this myself. I did three exams in a row that week. Contract being the last of the week. Now I don't have my result but I must admit I was happy with this paper. I did the 4 essays and that problem question on representation. Even without the course its clear privity cannot be discussed without the LRC and the main issue with common mistake is the fact equity plays a role in Ireland has opposed to UK. I did not need a prep course to know if I was going to do a question on it I need that to be discussed. Exemption clauses and things like implied terms are common enough in contracts.

I did expect a hell of a worse exam. But in exam I always try the essays and do one problem. The problem questions are always so long and hopefully it will serve well on me so when I do go to the problem question last I have more time to spend on it then say an essay.

RandolphEsq

Caoileann wrote: »

You are very motivating! I go about these exams the same way as you- write notes then cut them down. Have that done for equity but still have to do it for const, as well as learning it from scratch! Didn't think it was possible.. I need to get me some ADHD meds!

Buy my book.

brian__foley

Red Stripe wrote: »

With respect, I think this offering is a little self-serving.
Worth keeping in mind I think that not all have the time/financial means to avail of 'direct prepping' for angles and issues.

Hi,

I do see your point, and you might forgive that language, but you should be able to see that for a few years now on this thread I've tried to help out generally on fe1 and fe1 contract/constitutional law issues in as neutral a way as possible and have tried to help on just this issue - i.e. working out where the contract exam is going etc. In fact, many of the points regarding angles / issues that I'd bank on, I've made in this thread in response to queries about the exam - e.g. (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=74706983). Also, on prior occasions on this thread, students have sent me the exam and asked for my view - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=74943463 - which I have given in similar terms and also for constitutional law. So, please forgive any inference of commercialisation (and I can see your point) here, but my aim on here has, from my perspective, been genuine in something I'm interested in, but I think the thread has moved on a bit since and it is perhaps time for me to leave this thread alone and reinvest in an unhealthy fantasy football obsession.

odonohs2

Regarding the elements of crime (actus reus, mens rea, intention, recklessness, etc.), it seems there is usually an essay question on one of these topics.

Any ideas which topics are worth the most attention?

chops018

odonohs2 wrote: »

Regarding the elements of crime (actus reus, mens rea, intention, recklessness, etc.), it seems there is usually an essay question on one of these topics.

Any ideas which topics are worth the most attention?

Well Strict Liability came up last time from the mens rea side of things, and causation came up on the actus reus side of things. Not saying that they are guaranteed to not come up this time but they would probably be the ones to leave out I'd say.

Red Stripe

brian__foley wrote: »

Hi,

I do see your point, and you might forgive that language, but you should be able to see that for a few years now on this thread I've tried to help out generally on fe1 and fe1 contract/constitutional law issues in as neutral a way as possible and have tried to help on just this issue - i.e. working out where the contract exam is going etc. In fact, many of the points regarding angles / issues that I'd bank on, I've made in this thread in response to queries about the exam - e.g. (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=74706983). Also, on prior occasions on this thread, students have sent me the exam and asked for my view - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=74943463 - which I have given in similar terms and also for constitutional law. So, please forgive any inference of commercialisation (and I can see your point) here, but my aim on here has, from my perspective, been genuine in something I'm interested in, but I think the thread has moved on a bit since and it is perhaps time for me to leave this thread alone and reinvest in an unhealthy fantasy football obsession.

Hi,

I've read your contributions before, and I as I am sure others have also, have benefited from them. No slight on your integrity intended from me I can assure you, just had a bad contract exam thats all, so please don't let me be the one to end your input.

userlady

What are people focusing on for competition law? I find that my manual which goes through all of Art 101 and A102 often which is easily applicable to problem Qs isnt sufficient to answer some of his past essay qs.

Would it be mad to just study State Aid?

banterful

userlady wrote: »

What are people focusing on for competition law? I find that my manual which goes through all of Art 101 and A102 often which is easily applicable to problem Qs isnt sufficient to answer some of his past essay qs.

Would it be mad to just study State Aid?

Prob better to bite to bullet & do a101/2 - no guarantee SA will come up! I'm the opposite, wondering whether to bother with State Aid!!

Quick q for yourself and anyone else doing EU - would one be mad to leave out infringement proceedings & prelim ref? Could be alright essay qs but again no guarantees! Just wondering how best to use these last 48 hours - after a good sleep

Denham

any ideas on what offences require subjective recklessness please? nfoap rape and theft?

boomtown84

banterful wrote: »

Prob better to bite to bullet & do a101/2 - no guarantee SA will come up! I'm the opposite, wondering whether to bother with State Aid!!

Quick q for yourself and anyone else doing EU - would one be mad to leave out infringement proceedings & prelim ref? Could be alright essay qs but again no guarantees! Just wondering how best to use these last 48 hours - after a good sleep

I think they're worth doing. I have notes done out for essay questions on Infringement proceedings, prelim reference and Judicial Review so i'll probably have time tomorrow to go over them. Hopefully won't need them but better safe than sorry.

evercloserunion

What are people's views on the must-do topics for EU? My current plan is:

- Free movement of services, establishment, workers, capital
- Free movement of goods
- Competition (definitely Arts 101 and 102, probably mergers, maybe state aid)
- Citizenship
- Direct effect and supremacy
- Legislative procedures
- Subsidiarity
- Maybe preliminary reference and infringement proceedings

Does anyone know if those will cover me? I don't have access to past papers so it's difficult to gauge. I screwed up Company after leaving myself short on topics so I want to make sure I have myself covered this time around.

chops018

How is everyone set for criminal tomorrow?

I seem to have a good knowledge of the main areas, it's the niche areas like false imprisonment and the like that seem to escape my memory. I also seem to find it hard to remember the cases for the offences too.

Hoping it's not a paper on niche areas and the essays are nice. Would love a Melling essay and wouldn't mind one on actus reus (omissions) and/or mens rea (intention or recklessness).

I've covered nearly everything but it's hard to try remember it all, hoping it comes back to me when I read the question and see the issue.

Fe1exams

chops018 wrote: »

How is everyone set for criminal tomorrow?

I seem to have a good knowledge of the main areas, it's the niche areas like false imprisonment and the like that seem to escape my memory. I also seem to find it hard to remember the cases for the offences too.

Hoping it's not a paper on niche areas and the essays are nice. Would love a Melling essay and wouldn't mind one on actus reus (omissions) and/or mens rea (intention or recklessness).

I've covered nearly everything but it's hard to try remember it all, hoping it comes back to me when I read the question and see the issue.

There is so much to remember and its all very specific with criminal law. i suppose at least we know there are some areas which were guaranteed a question on ish... im wrecked... its been a long few months without a long break.... 4 weeks without a day off now for me... thats gotta be illegal.. hard to stay awake now too.... get the violins out!!!

chops018

Fe1exams wrote: »

There is so much to remember and its all very specific with criminal law. i suppose at least we know there are some areas which were guaranteed a question on ish... im wrecked... its been a long few months without a long break.... 4 weeks without a day off now for me... thats gotta be illegal.. hard to stay awake now too.... get the violins out!!!

It's tough going alright! My study isn't going the best, bit scary at the fact it's not sticking. I keep telling myself that I've read over it all numerous times in different shapes and forms and it'll surely come back to me tomorrow. Here's hoping......

itsonlybla

evercloserunion wrote: »

What are people's views on the must-do topics for EU? My current plan is:

- Free movement of services, establishment, workers, capital
- Free movement of goods
- Competition (definitely Arts 101 and 102, probably mergers, maybe state aid)
- Citizenship
- Direct effect and supremacy
- Legislative procedures
- Subsidiarity
- Maybe preliminary reference and infringement proceedings

Does anyone know if those will cover me? I don't have access to past papers so it's difficult to gauge. I screwed up Company after leaving myself short on topics so I want to make sure I have myself covered this time around.

Why Mergers over State Aid if I can ask?

MS liability is fairly quick to cover too.

evercloserunion

itsonlybla wrote: »

Why Mergers over State Aid if I can ask?

MS liability is fairly quick to cover too.

I don't know; as I said I don't have access to the exam papers so I don't know which one is more common. I'll probably end up doing both.

Thanks for the tip on MS liability.

itsonlybla

evercloserunion wrote: »

itsonlybla wrote: »

Why Mergers over State Aid if I can ask?

MS liability is fairly quick to cover too.

I don't know; as I said I don't have access to the exam papers so I don't know which one is more common. I'll probably end up doing both.

Thanks for the tip on MS liability.

Mergers has barely ever been up, State Aid is much more regular. I suppose you never know though.

MS liability often comes up mixed with direct effect (or lack thereof) of directives.