FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

frustratedTC

JCJCJC wrote: »

I think you'd want to crack on at this stage, const and EU take a lot of reading just to get through the course. Devise a strategy for highlighting your EU treaty before you start - eg assign a colour for each topic etc. Don't forget to highlight the contents page and the index too, especially in EU where stuff can be spread across two treaties, not to mention regs etc.

5 days a week? what are you doing for the other two!! ;-)

Seriously would most ppl finished the courses by now? Id heard of a lot of ppl just starting this week with 4.

JCJCJC

frustratedTC wrote: »

Seriously would most ppl finished the courses by now? Id heard of a lot of ppl just starting this week with 4.

It's impossible to generalise. Some FE1 students are law graduates, recent or otherwise, some aren't. Some easily recall everything they've ever read or learnt, some don't. Some have relevant work experience in the legal buiz, some don't. So it's up to yourself - there's no official 'Day 1' to commence FE1 study, but there is a 'Day 1' for the March 2013 sittings and that won't change.

JCJCJC

Where's the FE1 materials 'buy & sell' thread these days? I've found a thread, but it has been closed. I need to de-clutter and make a few bob for guitars and drink.

LegalCity

JCJCJC wrote: »

Where's the FE1 materials 'buy & sell' thread these days? I've found a thread, but it has been closed. I need to de-clutter and make a few bob for guitars and drink.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056512376

frustratedTC

JCJCJC how long did it take you to get all 8?

JCJCJC

frustratedTC wrote: »

JCJCJC how long did it take you to get all 8?

It felt like a 100 years I got 2, 3, 2, 1 & 2, so about 2.5 years. I don't exactly have the big five roaring offers in the letterbox at me right now but I've all eight passed, I don't really care how, I don't have to do the effers ever again ;-)

chops018

JCJCJC wrote: »

I think you'd want to crack on at this stage, const and EU take a lot of reading just to get through the course. Devise a strategy for highlighting your EU treaty before you start - eg assign a colour for each topic etc. Don't forget to highlight the contents page and the index too, especially in EU where stuff can be spread across two treaties, not to mention regs etc.

5 days a week? what are you doing for the other two!! ;-)

Haha! Well I'm working part time too and I am finding it difficult to get through Const and EU, I'm only starting to get a good piece of grounding on it now.

I'm not saying I don't understand the topics, when I go through a topic in my notes or manual for the above they seem fine, but then when I go to the grid and dig up past questions and corresponding sample answers I do find myself going "WTF" for some of them.

Const really is annoying me, I am finding it hard to wrap my head around the exam, not the topics, he seems to just ask random stuff and sometimes when I look at a question I am not so sure about it, and I find myself asking if he is looking for this issue or that or both and if the essay is as straightforward as it seems.

EU for the moment seems ok, getting through a nice bit of it I must say, and the fact that the question don't seem to really mix topics is always good. I think it's just a matter of being familiar with the up to date treaties, which I will spend a good two or three days on after I've gone through the topics - I would have done it already but I am like 7 topics in.

Why oh why did I choose Const and EU as my next two haha!

Anyway as I said before I got some of it covered in December but then for about 3 weeks - December 20th to 4th January I did barely anything. So I am trying to get it all done now. My plan is to have all my notes, and some of the chapters in the manual and sample answers and reports looked at and digested by the end of the month or start of February then I can move onto sorting my legislation and then moving onto some revision and see how I am shaped, if I'm looking good by the middle of February I'll consider bringing Tort in, I am gonna pay for the three just incase.

Or JC, would you recommend dumping either EU or Const and taking on Tort instead of one of them, that way I would have what is considered one very difficult one and the other a bit more manageable?

JCJCJC

chops018 wrote: »

Haha! Well I'm working part time too and I am finding it difficult to get through Const and EU, I'm only starting to get a good piece of grounding on it now.

I'm not saying I don't understand the topics, when I go through a topic in my notes or manual for the above they seem fine, but then when I go to the grid and dig up past questions and corresponding sample answers I do find myself going "WTF" for some of them.

Const really is annoying me, I am finding it hard to wrap my head around the exam, not the topics, he seems to just ask random stuff and sometimes when I look at a question I am not so sure about it, and I find myself asking if he is looking for this issue or that or both and if the essay is as straightforward as it seems.

EU for the moment seems ok, getting through a nice bit of it I must say, and the fact that the question don't seem to really mix topics is always good. I think it's just a matter of being familiar with the up to date treaties, which I will spend a good two or three days on after I've gone through the topics - I would have done it already but I am like 7 topics in.

Why oh why did I choose Const and EU as my next two haha!

Anyway as I said before I got some of it covered in December but then for about 3 weeks - December 20th to 4th January I did barely anything. So I am trying to get it all done now. My plan is to have all my notes, and some of the chapters in the manual and sample answers and reports looked at and digested by the end of the month or start of February then I can move onto sorting my legislation and then moving onto some revision and see how I am shaped, if I'm looking good by the middle of February I'll consider bringing Tort in, I am gonna pay for the three just incase.

Or JC, would you recommend dumping either EU or Const and taking on Tort instead of one of them, that way I would have what is considered one very difficult one and the other a bit more manageable?

Well, when I turned over the EU paper last March is mé istig san Bó Dearg, believe me it was a WTF moment, and a long one. However, I picked a question that seemed to offer a glimmer of hope and started...and then did another one and so on.

In both EU and const I think the case-note question can be successfully targetted, even though they seem not to be popular here. You can hardly study either subject without developing an awareness of how the landmark cases came to define the big issues. There's a double pay-off then - study the issues and note the cases, and vice-versa. There have been case-note question grids and analyses posted here which I have used. From memory - something like fifteen EU cases has been enough to get you a successful pick most of the time. Unfortunately, Const is a bit wider than that, but goddammit, the lecturer will tell you in TCD what recent cases he thinks are important, and why - it gets no better.
If you do case-notes, I think it's important to tell the story in your own words, cover the facts, and then state why the case was seminally important. No FE1 lecturer likes regurgitated rote-learnt notes, they keep repeating that. Your answer should display an obvious familiarity with the material - if you can achieve that, the examiner will know you're not just a crammer. I did Crotty v An Taoiseach, and I remember beginning by saying 'The late Mr. Raymond Crotty was an economist, known for his occasionally controversial analyses of matters of public debate'. That shows - I know his christian name and occupation, know that he's now dead, and know that he took on many a daft cause - eg lactose-intolerant people, if you want to google it.
Funnily enough, I got to like Constitutional in the end, but I fully agree it can be difficult to discern what exactly the questions are about. That's where past papers and examiners reports come into it, along with grids and worked answers. I keep referring to the question, I think it was in Oct 2010, about Willie the traveller looking for a council house. Several people I spoke to right after the exam had gone 'traveller - can only be about equality', and proceeded to apply a good slap of equality law to it come what may. It couldn't be equality because there was no comparator. In my humble, it was a question about sep of powers - when will a court step into the executive domain and make an order allocating resources. I passed. There is a great article on Westlaw by Paul Anthony McDermott SC on a case called Frawley, which formed the basis of my answer anyway. I like PA McD's style of writing, he uses simple language, he speaks in pictures and he can be very witty. Frawley used to dismantle his radio and eat it bit by bit, down to the batteries. The prison govnor took him to A&E every so often - more or less to change his batteries. PA wrote superbly about it, and a few other related cases. he got me past Willie the traveller.

Look - nobody should take advice from the www, even this remote corner of it, in a serious career matter. However, you've asked. I would say press on with Const and EU, and add tort as a sacrificial third if you think you are in with any chance. Do the GCD revision courses on all three and follow their advice!!! I did the tort one, the guy was excellent, but his judgment on likely topics really came off well. Our friend Brian hates references to 'predictions', for good reason, but still the considered bona-fide opinion of an experienced practising barrister and law teacher, totally focussed on these exams and these examiners, is not to be sneezed at, in my humble. It's not a mathematical science, but neither is litigation, otherwise mathematicians would be appearing in the four courts.

Postscript- in college, we were warned against daring to look at wikipedia, but it's very good for EU case notes.
Van Duyn
My old friend Van Gend en Loos see the link at the top of the page.

chops018

JCJCJC wrote: »

Well, when I turned over the EU paper last March is mé istig san Bó Dearg, believe me it was a WTF moment, and a long one. However, I picked a question that seemed to offer a glimmer of hope and started...and then did another one and so on.

In both EU and const I think the case-note question can be successfully targetted, even though they seem not to be popular here. You can hardly study either subject without developing an awareness of how the landmark cases came to define the big issues. There's a double pay-off then - study the issues and note the cases, and vice-versa. There have been case-note question grids and analyses posted here which I have used. From memory - something like fifteen EU cases has been enough to get you a successful pick most of the time. Unfortunately, Const is a bit wider than that, but goddammit, the lecturer will tell you in TCD what recent cases he thinks are important, and why - it gets no better.
If you do case-notes, I think it's important to tell the story in your own words, cover the facts, and then state why the case was seminally important. No FE1 lecturer likes regurgitated rote-learnt notes, they keep repeating that. Your answer should display an obvious familiarity with the material - if you can achieve that, the examiner will know you're not just a crammer. I did Crotty v An Taoiseach, and I remember beginning by saying 'The late Mr. Raymond Crotty was an economist, known for his occasionally controversial analyses of matters of public debate'. That shows - I know his christian name and occupation, know that he's now dead, and know that he took on many a daft cause - eg lactose-intolerant people, if you want to google it.
Funnily enough, I got to like Constitutional in the end, but I fully agree it can be difficult to discern what exactly the questions are about. That's where past papers and examiners reports come into it, along with grids and worked answers. I keep referring to the question, I think it was in Oct 2010, about Willie the traveller looking for a council house. Several people I spoke to right after the exam had gone 'traveller - can only be about equality', and proceeded to apply a good slap of equality law to it come what may. It couldn't be equality because there was no comparator. In my humble, it was a question about sep of powers - when will a court step into the executive domain and make an order allocating resources. I passed. There is a great article on Westlaw by Paul Anthony McDermott SC on a case called Frawley, which formed the basis of my answer anyway. I like PA McD's style of writing, he uses simple language, he speaks in pictures and he can be very witty. Frawley used to dismantle his radio and eat it bit by bit, down to the batteries. The prison govnor took him to A&E every so often - more or less to change his batteries. PA wrote superbly about it, and a few other related cases. he got me past Willie the traveller.

Look - nobody should take advice from the www, even this remote corner of it, in a serious career matter. However, you've asked. I would say press on with Const and EU, and add tort as a sacrificial third if you think you are in with any chance. Do the GCD revision courses on all three and follow their advice!!! I did the tort one, the guy was excellent, but his judgment on likely topics really came off well. Our friend Brian hates references to 'predictions', for good reason, but still the considered bona-fide opinion of an experienced practising barrister and law teacher, totally focussed on these exams and these examiners, is not to be sneezed at, in my humble. It's not a mathematical science, but neither is litigation, otherwise mathematicians would be appearing in the four courts.

Thanks a lot for that piece of advice and the experience sharing. I actually like some parts of constitutional it's just the feckin questions I hate. I am half way through it as I said so I suppose there is no point in changing now.

sorchauna

chops018 wrote: »

Thanks a lot for that piece of advice and the experience sharing. I actually like some parts of constitutional it's just the feckin questions I hate. I am half way through it as I said so I suppose there is no point in changing now.

Sure you started EU and Cons, you should see them out!

frustratedTC

Anyone any good on separation of powers they are driving me mad!

My manual talks about the SOP would not support the power to select punishment being vested in the Executive in the Deaton Case. From what I understand prescription of the penalty is laid down by the Legislature, and the case is essentially saying that u cant remove judicial function in the selection of punishments - so if it is the legislature removing this, then how does the Executive come into it?

chops018

frustratedTC wrote: »

Anyone any good on separation of powers they are driving me mad!

My manual talks about the SOP would not support the power to select punishment being vested in the Executive in the Deaton Case. From what I understand prescription of the penalty is laid down by the Legislature, and the case is essentially saying that u cant remove judicial function in the selection of punishments - so if it is the legislature removing this, then how does the Executive come into it?

It was the executive (revenue commissioners) trying to impose penalties, but this was a breach of the SOP as only the judiciary (courts) can do this, where there is a choice of penalty that is, if the legislation says it's a fixed penalty then there would be no breach as the penalty is equally applied to all those convicted of the crime.

Northern Child

frustratedTC wrote: »

Anyone any good on separation of powers they are driving me mad!

My manual talks about the SOP would not support the power to select punishment being vested in the Executive in the Deaton Case. From what I understand prescription of the penalty is laid down by the Legislature, and the case is essentially saying that u cant remove judicial function in the selection of punishments - so if it is the legislature removing this, then how does the Executive come into it?

its a very confusing part of the separation of powers and not one i fully understand. from what i glean, it the exec to commute and remit punishment. it can be set down in law certain punishments for certain offences, but then when there is an element of choice, this then passes over to the judicial domain. it is the courts who have the power to punish and not the exec. is this correct or totally off?

im doing constitutional and struggle to know where to go for help

my questions is specifically q3 from 2012 october...gregory and the journalist from the daily record is forced to come before an inquiry set up by a minister and is compelled to answer questions relating to a story he wrote...has anyone seen this question, and if so tell me what in the name of good god its about?

anyone have a look at this and let me know what they think? im going to head along to that event in ucd as well....

also perhaps JC could answer this...do others on here who have passed constitutional prepare for the const. casenote in similar way to EU?

Cheers for your help.

chops018

Northern Child wrote: »

my questions is specifically q3 from 2012 october...gregory and the journalist from the daily record is forced to come before an inquiry set up by a minister and is compelled to answer questions relating to a story he wrote...has anyone seen this question, and if so tell me what in the name of good god its about?

anyone have a look at this and let me know what they think? im going to head along to that event in ucd as well....

Cheers for your help.

I'm just having a browse at that question now, at first glance it would see to come under article 38 - trial in due course of law and the right to cross examine, there are lots of unenumerated rights that stem from this article - right to silence can be looked at also and whether juries can draw inferences etc. It looks to me that they are asking whether the trial is unlikely to be an unfair one. And so that means addressing the issues under article 38.

That would be my take on it. Anyone agree/disagree?

That's the problem with constitutional, you can have a question and think you spot the issues and it turns out you got it completely wrong or missed some serious issues.

Northern Child

chops018 wrote: »

I'm just having a browse at that question now, at first glance it would see to come under article 38 - trial in due course of law and the right to cross examine, there are lots of unenumerated rights that stem from this article - right to silence can be looked at also and whether juries can draw inferences etc. It looks to me that they are asking whether the trial is unlikely to be an unfair one. And so that means addressing the issues under article 38.

That would be my take on it. Anyone agree/disagree?

That's the problem with constitutional, you can have a question and think you spot the issues and it turns out you got it completely wrong or missed some serious issues.

thanks for that. I avoided due process as its an investigation which is set up by a government minister, so I though it was more fair procedures, mixed with good name? He isn't specifically charged with accussed of anything so I am wondering whether either fair procedures or due process applies to this...anyone any other ideas?

MoneyMilo

Northern Child wrote: »

thanks for that. I avoided due process as its an investigation which is set up by a government minister, so I though it was more fair procedures, mixed with good name? He isn't specifically charged with accussed of anything so I am wondering whether either fair procedures or due process applies to this...anyone any other ideas?

If you think this question is bad now, try doing it under pressure and time constraints in October! My understanding is that 38.1 does not apply. 38.1 only applies to criminal charges. Gregory isn't/cannot be investigated on criminal grounds here, as the body investigating him is not a court. Surely it can't be a court just because the Minister says it is, for certain aspects (??)

I think Fair Procedures applies. Then also Good Name, Right to silence? Anything else??
It really was a brutal question

Northern Child

MoneyMilo wrote: »

If you think this question is bad now, try doing it under pressure and time constraints in October! My understanding is that 38.1 does not apply. 38.1 only applies to criminal charges. Gregory isn't/cannot be investigated on criminal grounds here, as the body investigating him is not a court. Surely it can't be a court just because the Minister says it is, for certain aspects (??)

I think Fair Procedures applies. Then also Good Name, Right to silence? Anything else??
It really was a brutal question

I know as I did it and I think it cost me, I was in rush and gave a wishy washy due process answer mixed with fair procedures, then the right to silence applies even when not in a criminal setting? i thought it was bound up with due process a38.1 rights...is there a case on point for this question does anyone know? cheers for the help!

Eyespy

Northern Child wrote: »

I know as I did it and I think it cost me, I was in rush and gave a wishy washy due process answer mixed with fair procedures, then the right to silence applies even when not in a criminal setting? i thought it was bound up with due process a38.1 rights...is there a case on point for this question does anyone know? cheers for the help!

Was Gregory a reporter in the question? Sorry but I didn't sit the October setting but I vaguely remember reading a case earlier last year that might have fitted if he was, is there any chance someone could post the question please?

Northern Child

Eyespy wrote: »

Was Gregory a reporter in the question? Sorry but I didn't sit the October setting but I vaguely remember reading a case earlier last year that might have fitted if he was, is there any chance someone could post the question please?

Yes Greg was a reporter- the jist of the question is that he obtains an envelope in the post containing copies of plan by the military to overthrow the government. Then the ministers appoints an inquiry which is chaired by a HC judge and it will have the powers vested in the HC concerning the calling of witnesses. Then the terms of the law provides that Greg can be compelled to answer certain questions. So there is a case on point? How would you answer it by referring to what topics? Thanks ever so much for the help but this question stumped me!!

JCJCJC

Northern Child wrote: »

...

also perhaps JC could answer this...do others on here who have passed constitutional prepare for the const. casenote in similar way to EU?

I really don't know. I've picked up the impression that the case-note question isn't very popular, based on being active here for about the past three years. In principle, the same advice applies - as you learn constitutional principles, you should be coming across the big cases. The trouble is, in the past few years there have been what your examiner called 'bumper crops' of constitutional law so it is necessary to keep up to date. That is where the UCD seminar comes in - it at least tells you which cases Dr EC thinks are important. He's not out to trick you - his aim is to set a fair exam to test your knowledge of constitutional law to the standard a novice solicitor ought to have. If you've done your study, the case notes are an opportunity to display it. Since you have a choice of five out of eight questions on the paper, and an internal choice in the case-note question, to be honest it's reasonable and fair. I would reckon that if you had his list for this year's seminar - ie his fav 2012 cases, his fav 2011 cases and a few 'greatest hits and golden oldies' you'd have an odd-on bet on that question. There's no need to read endless 200-page judgments, books like Casey's give summaries of the hot bits of the cases. If you do have the TCD handout and have a gander at the case on line, you'll know loads. To really put cream on it altogether, check Westlaw or the likes for comment and analysis by senior barristers and legal writers, especially EC himself - he does write and publish!

I can't speak for anyone else - open to the floor...

Northern Child

JCJCJC wrote: »

I really don't know. I've picked up the impression that the case-note question isn't very popular, based on being active here for about the past three years. In principle, the same advice applies - as you learn constitutional principles, you should be coming across the big cases. The trouble is, in the past few years there have been what your examiner called 'bumper crops' of constitutional law so it is necessary to keep up to date. That is where the UCD seminar comes in - it at least tells you which cases Dr EC thinks are important. He's not out to trick you - his aim is to set a fair exam to test your knowledge of constitutional law to the standard a novice solicitor ought to have. If you've done your study, the case notes are an opportunity to display it. Since you have a choice of five out of eight questions on the paper, and an internal choice in the case-note question, to be honest it's reasonable and fair. I would reckon that if you had his list for this year's seminar - ie his fav 2012 cases, his fav 2011 cases and a few 'greatest hits and golden oldies' you'd have an odd-on bet on that question. There's no need to read endless 200-page judgments, books like Casey's give summaries of the hot bits of the cases. If you do have the TCD handout and have a gander at the case on line, you'll know loads. To really put cream on it altogether, check Westlaw or the likes for comment and analysis by senior barristers and legal writers, especially EC himself - he does write and publish!

I can't speak for anyone else - open to the floor...

Thanks for this JC, I will prepare the major cases that have come up in the past Crotty, X etc and then add in the relevant recent ones that I hope/think could come up, get along to that thing in UCD, hopefully that will give me two of the four case notes! thanks

MoneyMilo

JCJCJC wrote: »

I really don't know. I've picked up the impression that the case-note question isn't very popular, based on being active here for about the past three years. In principle, the same advice applies - as you learn constitutional principles, you should be coming across the big cases. The trouble is, in the past few years there have been what your examiner called 'bumper crops' of constitutional law so it is necessary to keep up to date. That is where the UCD seminar comes in - it at least tells you which cases Dr EC thinks are important. He's not out to trick you - his aim is to set a fair exam to test your knowledge of constitutional law to the standard a novice solicitor ought to have. If you've done your study, the case notes are an opportunity to display it. Since you have a choice of five out of eight questions on the paper, and an internal choice in the case-note question, to be honest it's reasonable and fair. I would reckon that if you had his list for this year's seminar - ie his fav 2012 cases, his fav 2011 cases and a few 'greatest hits and golden oldies' you'd have an odd-on bet on that question. There's no need to read endless 200-page judgments, books like Casey's give summaries of the hot bits of the cases. If you do have the TCD handout and have a gander at the case on line, you'll know loads. To really put cream on it altogether, check Westlaw or the likes for comment and analysis by senior barristers and legal writers, especially EC himself - he does write and publish!

I can't speak for anyone else - open to the floor...

What's the TCD handout?

chops018

Anyone on here have last years handout :P Yeah I booked my place for this one, looking forward to it now, it sounds really beneficial.

JCJCJC

MoneyMilo wrote: »

What's the TCD handout?

Sorry - meant UCD - the handout Dr Eoin Carolan gives on the 20 most important recent cases.

sofakingood

Does any1 have up to date Tort and Constitutional exam grids that they would be willing to share?

I have loads of exam papers and sample answers for Contract, Criminal, Equity and Property that I would share in exchange.

KoukiKeith

sofakingood wrote: »

Does any1 have up to date Tort and Constitutional exam grids that they would be willing to share?

I have loads of exam papers and sample answers for Contract, Criminal, Equity and Property that I would share in exchange.

I have Tort. Wouldn't mind a criminal one? Pm me :-)

KoukiKeith

Also, anyone have one of the aforementioned EU case note grids? Could swap some EU, Criminal, Tort or Company stuff in return.

JCJCJC

Robbo wrote: »

Frequency:

1. Microsoft – 5
2. Simmenthal – 3
3. Altmark – 3
4. Kobler – 3
5. ERTA - 3
6. Van Gend en Loos - 3
7. Zhu & Chen – 3
8. Marshall – 3
9. P Kadi – 2
10. Laval – 2
11. Bar – 1

That's out of 8 outings. Cover the top 10 there and you have 30 out of 54 since the question began; terms and conditions apply, investments may go up and down as well as side to side.

That's the EU case frequency analysis as of last February, courtesy of Robbo. Someone with the March and October 2012 papers might do the decent thing and add them to it please for the benefit of all.

KoukiKeith

JCJCJC wrote: »

That's the EU case frequency analysis as of last February, courtesy of Robbo. Someone with the March and October 2012 papers might do the decent thing and add them to it please for the benefit of all.

Thanks so much! I know that Laval & Zambrano came up in Oct 2012 but am unaware of the rest. Hopefully someone will know the others.

Northern Child

KoukiKeith wrote: »

Thanks so much! I know that Laval & Zambrano came up in Oct 2012 but am unaware of the rest. Hopefully someone will know the others.

I believe/think i answered the casenotes on tobacco advertising and van gend

if anyone on here is looking at constitutional atm, could you have a look at march 2012 q3...mark and stephen, the partners who are looking after a child who gets rejected from school. i know its an primary education issue but just was wondering what others? i though equality though my review course teacher said that she wouldn't go down that road...any thoughts? cheers