KI entrance exams

swervring

Pretty sure I failed today - question 1 I made a hash of & forgot half what I should have said, keep getting statute names mixed up & forgetting case names fairly sure going into it that I didn't have much chance as my plan to study for months didn't exactly work out.... Oh well there's always next year

Tom Young

The Inns allows for compensation in one subject. Do not, repeat DO NOT give up. It's a 5 day event. Ears back, head down and forget about today.

swervring

Tom Young wrote: »

The Inns allows for compensation in one subject. Do not, repeat DO NOT give up. It's a 5 day event. Ears back, head down and forget about today.

Thanks Tom. I'm still feeling that I'll be back next year as lack of study means that overall I feel my answers demonstrate a good knowledge & understanding of the law but without appropriate reference to case law or legislation which will be my downfall!! But the head is going back down & into contract for tomorrow....

Procrastastudy

Good luck - I'm being entertained by various Lord Denning quotes in regard to exemption clauses for my undergrad Contract exam on Thursday.

You probably did better than you think you did - don't give up - you'll be pissed off if you find you passed that one and then failed one because you gave up.

swervring

swervring wrote: »

Thanks Tom. I'm still feeling that I'll be back next year as lack of study means that overall I feel my answers demonstrate a good knowledge & understanding of the law but without appropriate reference to case law or legislation which will be my downfall!! But the head is going back down & into contract for tomorrow....

Issues are the key. Being able to identify issues will get you a long long way to that pass. Keep it going and best of luck.

NoQuarter

swervring wrote: »

Pretty sure I failed today - question 1 I made a hash of & forgot half what I should have said, keep getting statute names mixed up & forgetting case names fairly sure going into it that I didn't have much chance as my plan to study for months didn't exactly work out.... Oh well there's always next year

NEVER give up with the KI entrance exams, you could have got 45% and so you just need to pass the other 4. Forget about todays exam now and work on passing the others.

I saw LOTS of people last year who thought they had failed one and passed. Keep going and good luck.

page1

swervring wrote: »

Pretty sure I failed today - question 1 I made a hash of & forgot half what I should have said, keep getting statute names mixed up & forgetting case names fairly sure going into it that I didn't have much chance as my plan to study for months didn't exactly work out.... Oh well there's always next year

The rape question right? I just set out the section then wrote about recklessness and a small bit on consent and intoxication. It was an odd question. I felt I did better in tort yesterday. Roll on contract tomorrow. Don't get disheartened and don't dwell on it. Move on and concentrate on the rest of them. Good luck for the rest of the week.

swervring

Exactly, the rape question. I concentrated on consent and think half what i wrote was actually irrelevant but couldnt think of anything else - expanding on recklessness didnt actually dawn on me until hours later. what confused me the most was "assume that the jury accept her version of events" - seemed like that answered the entire question on its own! The rest of it was ok but seemed like I didnt have much to say about any of it. Seemed a good lot of people left early though so at least it wasnt just me. Definitely happier with Tort yesterday.... bring on Contract tomorrow :eek:

swervring

And good look to you too page1

page1

swervring wrote: »

And good look to you too page1

Thanks. I read the question about 6 times trying to figure out what he was looking for. The "assume" bit threw me too I though if they have accepted her evidence what more is there? Honestly it took a good 10 minutes before I was sure of what to write.

NoQuarter

Can anyone recount the question in close terms?

swervring

Essentially:
boy meets girl late at night & she's obviously had a few, boy asks girl back, she says yes, they do some stuff then he asks for s3x & she says no, but later changes her mind. Few days later she goes to Gardai, says she never would have consented if she wasn't intoxicated, he knew she was & took advantage, and she remembers telling him to stop during it but he didn't. Assuming that the jury accept her version of events, advise boy as to whether he is likely to be convicted.

think that was all of it...

Tom Young

So: 2006/2007, CC v Ireland, A v Gov Arbour Hill Prison, Consent, Recklessness. R v Olugboja. Constitutional case on Equality SD/MD v Ireland.

Pass on correct advices and mention of new Defence of Honest Belief and possible dispatch of offence at District Court.

Jury point interesting in that you assume fact for one and against the other in those circumstances.

NoQuarter

As per Tom's post above and also mention the doctrine of recent complaint.

It's a bit confusing alright, I mean if the jury believe her, then he is likely to be convicted surely? Are they looking for you to talk about whether there should be no case to answer or whether the judge should direct an acquital here?

Tough question but I'd imagine it would be marked easy.

swervring

Got consent, defence of honest belief, Kaitamaki v. R mens rea for continuing act... think i missed most of the rest of it... but anyway cant change it now!!!

page1

There was no mention of age in it so I didn't mention A, CC or MD. Thought about the doctrine of recent complaint but didn't put it down as we were told th jury accepted her evidence. I put down Kaitmaki v R and Camplin, then all about consent, reasonable grounds for believing, recklessness and burden of proof.

Procrastastudy

Stop dissecting and concentrate on your upcoming papers!

Mess with this on on Saturday.

swervring

Good thinking today was much better... now for the monster that is Constitutional in the morning.... ROLL ON FRIDAY 1PM!!!

Tom Young

Good luck!

Cantabile

How did people get on today? Tort on Monday was the only one really that I'm worried about. Im just going on the hope that if I wrote 4 or 5 pages for each question there'll be enough in there for them to throw me some marks. ONE MORE SO EXCITED. Can't wait to have a life again!

swervring

Today I struggled - not as badly as I did in Criminal, but my third question was a bit of a disaster. Question 1 on the other hand was happy with and the Damache one. Tort and Contract both went better than I expected, my only serious worry is Criminal. I've the exact same hopes re the 4-5 pages!!! As for tomorrow, at this stage I just cant wait for it to be done!!! 13 hours and 2 minutes til freedom.... not that I'm counting or anything

NoQuarter

Just watch out for the unduly narrow essays tomorrow ie/ an essay on sacerdotal privilege, I mean who is gonna have a go at that, seriously!!!

swervring

Yeah looks like a danger of very specific privilege questions or very narrow issues that may only be worth a page or two... fingers crossed its manageable anyway, just going over EVERYTHING now!! Final hurdle fast approaching

NoQuarter

I genuinely believe she does it to bottleneck everyone into answering the 3 problem questions she wants them to answer.

swervring

NoQuarter wrote: »

I genuinely believe she does it to bottleneck everyone into answering the 3 problem questions she wants them to answer.

Only one problem other than section a and as predicted narrow essays - competence of mentally disabled persons to give evidence; without prejudice documents and judges warning in visual Id cases using formal parade !!!!

NoQuarter

Wow so you had to take on at least one of those? It would be the casey warning for me thanks very much!

Congrats on finishing, now go get acquainted with eddie in the Inns pub, it will be your new home come October all going well.

Tom Young

Well done!

Tom Young

All five.

swervring

Tom Young wrote: »

All five.

Done & dusted.... Here's waiting for September 18th!!!
Tough week felt like it went on forever but it's finally over

page1

NoQuarter wrote: »

Wow so you had to take on at least one of those? It would be the casey warning for me thanks very much!

Congrats on finishing, now go get acquainted with eddie in the Inns pub, it will be your new home come October all going well.

Very narrow essay questions, I was very surprised that there was only one other problem question apart from Q1 and at that the problem question was only about S1(f)(iii) dropping the shield. There was no room for error on the paper, you either knew the very narrow issues or you didn't.
Luckily for me in the hour prior to the exam I concentrated on the Casey warning and S1(f) and I also knew confessions and hearsay quiet well (Q1).

I'd be fairly confident I passed them all, contract was my only wobble but I still have the hope I can compensate for.
Roll on the 18th.
Good luck to all.

Hippo

What a week. Indeed, what a year from the start of Dip 2. Contract was the only total disaster, I'd be thrilled to have chiselled 45% out of that. Both Evidence and Criminal were incredibly narrow, little or no room for error there alright.

Interestingly, 2 of the questions on the Tort paper were copied more or less word for word from the 2004 paper, and the passing off question appeared word for word (didn't even bother to change the names) as part of a question on the 2005 paper. This must have proved extremely handy for those had access to the sample answers provided by a certain tutoring institution, not that I'm bitter.

Anyhow good luck all, the die is cast!

page1

The last question on evidence on 'without prejudice' was also on last years paper.
Contract was bad alright, I do wonder was there a mistake and we should have advised Aoife not Deirdre. Everyone I spoke with felt they did bad in it.

Hippo

page1 wrote: »

The last question on evidence on 'without prejudice' was also on last years paper.
Contract was bad alright, I do wonder was there a mistake and we should have advised Aoife not Deirdre. Everyone I spoke with felt they did bad in it.

Yes that whole question read very oddly. And you're right, no-one much liked that exam!
I just thought it was funny that such long, plotted Tort questions should be repeated verbatim. I'll know next time...

lawfilly

Congrats all!!
Cant wait for this time next year when Ill have the Dip and Entrance exams done! Roll on the longest eleven months of my life!

swervring

page1 wrote: »

The last question on evidence on 'without prejudice' was also on last years paper.
Contract was bad alright, I do wonder was there a mistake and we should have advised Aoife not Deirdre. Everyone I spoke with felt they did bad in it.

I couldn't actually figure out from how it was written who it was that booked the photographer, so I gave an answer for both! Just hoping I'm not back sitting them again next august although it's highly possible

cliff grebouwski

Hey guys,

FYI on the contract paper- I raised the Deirdre/Aoife problem with the invigilator in the first few minutes. They said just to read it and use my judgement. Then, after about 30 minutes they came back to and asked ME who I thought it referred to because other people had started asking the same question!!!! I told them that read one way, you could write off about 30% of the question so maybe they needed to clarify it.
They came back to me a couple of minutes later to say they were calling the examiner.
Finally someone came back and said, and this is a direct quote:
"The examiner said it makes it clear on the question who it refers to!"

Finally, just to make the whole thing even more surreal- a different invigilator came over AGAIN to ask me what the EXAMINER said?!?!!?

This actually happened!! Apart from being a pretty nasty paper overall, there better be some lenient marking done on Question 1.

page1

cliff grebouwski wrote: »

Hey guys,

FYI on the contract paper- I raised the Deirdre/Aoife problem with the invigilator in the first few minutes. They said just to read it and use my judgement. Then, after about 30 minutes they came back to and asked ME who I thought it referred to because other people had started asking the same question!!!! I told them that read one way, you could write off about 30% of the question so maybe they needed to clarify it.
They came back to me a couple of minutes later to say they were calling the examiner.
Finally someone came back and said, and this is a direct quote:
"The examiner said it makes it clear on the question who it refers to!"

Finally, just to make the whole thing even more surreal- a different invigilator came over AGAIN to ask me what the EXAMINER said?!?!!?

This actually happened!! Apart from being a pretty nasty paper overall, there better be some lenient marking done on Question 1.

Well about five minutes into the exam and three reads of the question I was unsure who the "she" was that booked the photographer. Initially I thought it was Aoife but when we were asked to advise Deirdre then the whole photographer element seemed moot, and like you said Cliff you could write off 30% of the question.
I called an invigilator and asked for clarification. About 15 mins later the reply was that I was to read the question carefully (like I hadn't already). In my answer I wrote that it was unclear who booked the photographer and gave advice for both.
I found it very unsettling and could not get a flow on the answer at all as I really felt the whole question was unclear.
I'm relieved to know that others also found it confusing, it will be interesting to see how it is marked. I'm just hoping that with two other decent answers I'll get the 45%.

NoQuarter

Welcome to the King's Inns. Id say there was a problem in about 80% of our assignments throughout the year that needed clarification.

Hippo

NoQuarter wrote: »

Welcome to the King's Inns. Id say there was a problem in about 80% of our assignments throughout the year that needed clarification.

In fairness we had almost no problems of interpretation with the assignments over the two years, but that contract question was a bit of a mess. The query wasn't communicated by the invigilator to the examiner I'd be pretty sure; certainly the query from 11 Henrietta Street went to a senior member of staff who sent back the 'read the question carefully' response which wasn't really all that helpful!

Cantabile

page1 wrote: »

cliff grebouwski wrote: »

Hey guys,

FYI on the contract paper- I raised the Deirdre/Aoife problem with the invigilator in the first few minutes. They said just to read it and use my judgement. Then, after about 30 minutes they came back to and asked ME who I thought it referred to because other people had started asking the same question!!!! I told them that read one way, you could write off about 30% of the question so maybe they needed to clarify it.
They came back to me a couple of minutes later to say they were calling the examiner.
Finally someone came back and said, and this is a direct quote:
"The examiner said it makes it clear on the question who it refers to!"

Finally, just to make the whole thing even more surreal- a different invigilator came over AGAIN to ask me what the EXAMINER said?!?!!?

This actually happened!! Apart from being a pretty nasty paper overall, there better be some lenient marking done on Question 1.

Well about five minutes into the exam and three reads of the question I was unsure who the "she" was that booked the photographer. Initially I thought it was Aoife but when we were asked to advise Deirdre then the whole photographer element seemed moot, and like you said Cliff you could write off 30% of the question.
I called an invigilator and asked for clarification. About 15 mins later the reply was that I was to read the question carefully (like I hadn't already). In my answer I wrote that it was unclear who booked the photographer and gave advice for both.
I found it very unsettling and could not get a flow on the answer at all as I really felt the whole question was unclear.
I'm relieved to know that others also found it confusing, it will be interesting to see how it is marked. I'm just hoping that with two other decent answers I'll get the 45%.

I didn't even notice the ambiguity to be honest. Just assumed it was Aoife who booked yer man because I think she was referred to in the sentence before. Wrote about privity and Murphy v Bower or whatever the case is...

ynotonavillus

Hi. Does anyone know if the results will go up online the day after they are posted.

swervring

ynotonavillus wrote: »

Hi. Does anyone know if the results will go up online the day after they are posted.

No idea I'm afraid but if you contact the Inns directly I'm sure they'll be able to tell you, they're pretty helpful with things like that

dublin daz

ynotonavillus wrote: »

Hi. Does anyone know if the results will go up online the day after they are posted.

As far as I know they go online in the kimm.kingsinns.ie portal.

ConorJ

dublin daz wrote: »

As far as I know they go online in the kimm.kingsinns.ie portal.

For last September at any rate the results were sent by post only - that particular website you mention was purely used for paying the examination fees.

ynotonavillus

Thanks for the responses...

Yes I had better give them a call tomorrow.

Will post their answer here....

ynotonavillus

ynotonavillus wrote: »

Thanks for the responses...

Yes I had better give them a call tomorrow.

Will post their answer here....

Just rang KI,

"Results will be sent to arrive on 18th and they also hope to post them online"

Two weeks to go!!!!!!!

swervring

Getting nervous thinking about it... can't wait but dreading it too.... On the one hand I'm thinking I couldn't have possibly passed them all and on the other just hoping I got enough marks here and there to add up.... scary stuff!!

Tom Young

Just wait. You've passed the first test by completing the five day hazing exercise!

Let there be no panic.

swervring

Yeah that was one tough week - never experienced anything like it! there were definitely some seats empty at the end that weren't at the beginning!

ynotonavillus

swervring wrote: »

Yeah that was one tough week - never experienced anything like it! there were definitely some seats empty at the end that weren't at the beginning!

Some say that it is HARDER to get out of the Inns then it is to get in.

But take some consolation in the law economics, fees received from those who fail €0.00

Fees from those who get in €12,600.00:D

lawfilly

ynotonavillus wrote: »

Some say that it is easier to get out of the Inns then it is to get in.

I wouldnt be too sure of that either!! 45% failed the BL last year!!