FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

randomchild

Yeah I am really struggling. Thought the 4 days after contract would be loads of time but its quickly dwindling away!

nehemiah

mollydog wrote: »

eu is hardest exam but easiest markes. oct 09 was a nightmare.based on previous exams i thought i would get about 40 but ended up getting 55. anyone know the pass rate for oct09?

I think the exam report said the pass rate was 64%.

TommyGavin

Anybody else feel that on looking at the property law exam they tried to keep away from any topics that would be effected by the new act?

THANK GOD!!

Pretty fair paper I thought overall.

Amre17

TommyGavin wrote: »

Pretty fair paper I thought overall.

Definately a very fair paper.. nicest one in years.. the only thing was some of the questions gave scope to write so much ie easements and coownership there was a bit of time pressure but i suppose thats a good complaint when you consider the restrictiveness of the adverse possession and cownership questions in the last sitting!

JCJCJC

TommyGavin wrote: »

Anybody else feel that on looking at the property law exam they tried to keep away from any topics that would be effected by the new act?

THANK GOD!!

Pretty fair paper I thought overall.

I liked the paper too, I think I'll fail that one by the smallest margin ;-) The new Act came into easements anyway - change in the prescription period, registration etc, abolition of the common law rules and all that stuff

Off to the pub JC

Monkey09

marko-polo wrote: »

It didn't seem like the farmer made any direct assurances or representation. I am merely going on what was said in CD v JDF.

Any idea what the reference is for CD v. JDF...Can' seem to find it anywhere!

Jev/N

Well sounds like the paper was much better than last years anyways!

Oh and to the poster above, that case is CF v JDF if I remember correctly:

http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2005/S45.html

coco13

Jev/N wrote: »

Well sounds like the paper was much better than last years anyways!

Oh and to the poster above, that case is CF v JDF if I remember correctly:

http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2005/S45.html

Yeh everyone I must admit that property paper was the nicest Ive seen in years.. Hopefully it wont be marked too harshly..After all my advice last night JC couldnt remember any caselaw for the life of me but sure threw it all at em and we'll see how it goes...No point worrying now anyways!!!! June will tell all!!!! Can you pass the exam if you can answer all the questions correctly but dont have alot of caselaw to refer to.. like very little caselaw!!!???

Pat.Kenny

Any suggestions on what can be left out of criminal? Or any MUST DO areas? Too many sections too little time!

McLawin

Criminal is one that definitely pays to know in broad brush strokes rather than trying to cram all the minutiae (and there's a lot of detail!) in your noggin. Do you have past papers? Defo cover mens rea (esp recklessness, intent), sexual offences, homicide (murder and alternative manslaughter charges in particular), non-fatal offences and property offences always come up in blended questions. The crimes against admin of justice tend to come as stand alone multiple part PQs and they would be rewarding since it's a short enough section of the course and the examiner is perpetually disappointed with poor answers. That's just stuff off the top of my head so if anyone has any other or any contradictory advice, do chip in. I haven't studied criminal in a while. Also of all of the examiners, the criminal examiner writes one of the most comprehensive reports. They're really worth a look.

Hogzy

Pat.Kenny wrote: »

Any suggestions on what can be left out of criminal? Or any MUST DO areas? Too many sections too little time!

Defenses, Offenses against the person & Property are an absolute MUST DO!!!!

Not a hope would you get 5 questions on those though, Im doing everything apart from Criminal practice and Procedure and offenses against the state, From what iv heard and seen on past papers Criminal has alot of mixed topics in the questions so its kinda hard to say whats guaranteed to come up.

Like the defenses usually comes up 2-3 times in a paper but obviously will be mixed in (for problem Q's) with offenses against the person or Property

Again Defenses are NNNNNB!!!!!!

legallad

what are peoples opinions on passing on 4 questions? say three good questions and 2 half questions? god i dont want to have failed eu!!!

epgc3fyqirnbsx

I'm not even gonna touch classification of crime, it has come up a few times and you could probably learn an essay on it but its a HUGE question and fairly confusing.
We still talk of felony and misdemeanor but were those disdinctions not repealed?

stewbacca

Just had a quick question regarding self-defence. Does anyone know what the changes the law reform commission are proposing regarding defence of family home/property? Can't get on to the law reform website for some reason keeps coming up as an error (my computer has clearly gone mad!). Don't really know what needs to be mentioned if this comes up etc.

NickDrake

TommyGavin wrote: »

Anybody else feel that on looking at the property law exam they tried to keep away from any topics that would be effected by the new act?

THANK GOD!!

Pretty fair paper I thought overall.

Well apart from easements, judgment mort, co-ownership she stayed away from the Act.

I liked the paper.

mycuzvinny

Has anybody an idea how to answer the multiple part qs which as what charges to bring. There is probably 8mins per q but what more is there othere than identifying the sectin and appying the definition? Any sample answers would be really appreciated! Also if anyone has a opic list from the last past paper that would help me destress! dunno anyone doing criminal this sitting

JCJCJC

NickDrake wrote: »

Well apart from easements, judgment mort, co-ownership she stayed away from the Act.

I liked the paper.

Yes, I liked it too. Didin't the succession question come up before, but with a value on the house? In relation to the new Act, under treasure trove I mentioned that the new act defines the airspace over the land that is owned with it, and therefore alters the use of old cujus est solum doctrine, no more Bernstein v Skyview.

the airspace above the surface of land or above any building or structure on land which is capable of being or was previously occupied by a building or structure and any part of such airspace, whether the division is made horizontally, vertically or in any other way,

That's too loosely drafted. You are going to get some guy in a caravan on the approach flightpath to a new airport runway sometime, saying the Burj Khalifa building in Dubai could fit that definition, therefore he owns 2625 feet above the grass in his paddock, in fact the starting point is to say every landowner now owns 2625 feet of air, going upwards as new technology anywhere in the world makes even taller buildings possible. And since land includes water, if you own a lake you have virtually no airspace because it ain't easy to build a skyscraper in a lake. There is no reasonableness in the definition, the courts are going to have to interpret 'capable' in the context of planning law etc to see if it is to mean 'reasonably capable'. All good clean fun on the day it happens, hopefully.



JC

JCJCJC

lougem wrote: »

The problem Qs are far too long, in fact even putting 5 essays into the exam is a bit pointless

Just for interest, I have done a rough word count on scans of the four papers I did, and EU is definitely way too long and verbose. The word count is:
Property 844
Contract 1006
Tort 1641
EU 1843

So the EU paper takes more than twice a much reading time as the property paper.

JC

darkangel1986

just wondering what is the difference between duress and neccessity?
how would you know which one to answer in a problem question?

marko-polo

Hey guys a little of topic I dont want to hijack the thread or anything but has anyone applied for internships to the big 5? Also I heard a rumour that mop have sent out notifications for interviews already a week earlier than stated on the site, has anyone heard this?

doz

For people doing criminal my personal opinion is that it's essential to do everything, maybe bar the procedural stuff, because he loves mixing topics and if you leave things out you can get badly caught in more than one question. That said, the questions are always very fair and it's marked relatively easy so i think anyone who has the work done will have no problem with it. I studied it using Hanly's book and the exam reports (which are excellent) and i got a pretty high mark.

NickDrake

JCJCJC wrote: »

Yes, I liked it too. Didin't the succession question come up before, but with a value on the house? In relation to the new Act, under treasure trove I mentioned that the new act defines the airspace over the land that is owned with it, and therefore alters the use of old cujus est solum doctrine, no more Bernstein v Skyview.

the airspace above the surface of land or above any building or structure on land which is capable of being or was previously occupied by a building or structure and any part of such airspace, whether the division is made horizontally, vertically or in any other way,

That's too loosely drafted. You are going to get some guy in a caravan on the approach flightpath to a new airport runway sometime, saying the Burj Khalifa building in Dubai could fit that definition, therefore he owns 2625 feet above the grass in his paddock, in fact the starting point is to say every landowner now owns 2625 feet of air, going upwards as new technology anywhere in the world makes even taller buildings possible. And since land includes water, if you own a lake you have virtually no airspace because it ain't easy to build a skyscraper in a lake. There is no reasonableness in the definition, the courts are going to have to interpret 'capable' in the context of planning law etc to see if it is to mean 'reasonably capable'. All good clean fun on the day it happens, hopefully.



JC

Respect for being able to type so well at 6am JC. You must have been well on by then.

McLawin

darkangel1986 wrote: »

just wondering what is the difference between duress and neccessity?
how would you know which one to answer in a problem question?

Necessity is sometimes described as "duress of circumstances" or "duress by necessity" and there has been a long running discussion on whether there is any distinction between the two at all. Actually the LRC's proposed Draft Bill on Defences abolishes the distinction and creates a single statutory defence of Duress (e.g. s6(1) A person does not commit an offence where he or she carries out the conduct constituting the offence under duress or duress of circumstances.).

As it stands at the moment, both defences exist separately:

Duress arises where someone is compelled to do something, which would ordinarily be criminal, but does so under threat to him/herself or another of serious violence or death. The defence arises where the duress comes from another person.

Necessity arises where the duress comes from the dire circumstances, e.g. an emergency situation, a person finds themselves in. The defence arises where the duress comes from circumstances.

I hope that helps a bit Good luck.

randomchild

McLawin wrote: »

Necessity is sometimes described as "duress of circumstances" or "duress by necessity" and there has been a long running discussion on whether there is any distinction between the two at all. Actually the LRC's proposed Draft Bill on Defences abolishes the distinction and creates a single statutory defence of Duress (e.g. s6(1) A person does not commit an offence where he or she carries out the conduct constituting the offence under duress or duress of circumstances.).

As it stands at the moment, both defences exist separately:

Duress arises where someone is compelled to do something, which would ordinarily be criminal, but does so under threat to him/herself or another of serious violence or death. The defence arises where the duress comes from another person.

Necessity arises where the duress comes from the dire circumstances, e.g. an emergency situation, a person finds themselves in. The defence arises where the duress comes from circumstances.

I hope that helps a bit Good luck.

Didn't R v Howe say that duress could arise from surrounding circumstances as well?

2ndtimer

Does anyone know how hard criminal is marked?

Jev/N

marko-polo wrote: »

Hey guys a little of topic I dont want to hijack the thread or anything but has anyone applied for internships to the big 5? Also I heard a rumour that mop have sent out notifications for interviews already a week earlier than stated on the site, has anyone heard this?

See the other thread on internships/apprenticeships for info

Pat.Kenny

Is automatism a full/partial defence to murder? Getting quite confused between all the defences at this stage!

Hogzy

Pat.Kenny wrote: »

Is automatism a full/partial defence to murder? Getting quite confused between all the defences at this stage!

Yes Automatism can be a full defence to Murder,

legallad

2ndtimer wrote: »

Does anyone know how hard criminal is marked?

Not that strictly in my opinion, i thought i did an average exam and got 69 so he seems fair. Criminal is quite a nice subject once youre reasonably competent at identifying all the issues in the problem questions.

Best of luck.

2ndtimer

legallad wrote: »

Not that strictly in my opinion, i thought i did an average exam and got 69 so he seems fair. Criminal is quite a nice subject once youre reasonably competent at identifying all the issues in the problem questions.

Best of luck.

Cheers for that..Hope you went well in EU. One day to go!!:D