FE1 Exam Thread (Read 1st post!) NOTICE: YOU MAY SWAP EXAM GRIDS

lawlols

jenspondolik wrote: »

Could someone give me a summary on relevance is zappone if its necessary not in book but on nbns

Zappone lesbian couple got married in Canada wanted it recognised here buy courts used historical approach so A41 marriage is between a biological man and biological woman only.

missindigo123

jenspondolik wrote: »

Could someone give me a summary on relevance is zappone if its necessary not in book but on nbns

I think this is the case where a lesbian couple wanted their marriage recognised in the courts, they relied upon changing attitudes towards marriage. Rejected because the court adopted a historical approach to the word marriage and said that only a constitution could change that! It's no overly relevant I don't think!

lawlols

Anybody know if a licence is a property right or not?! My notes keep contradicting! Help!! I know it is subject to implied condition that the conditions can be changed but is a licence a property right?!??!! (Panic)

FE1 student

Can anyone confirm in the Demache v Dpp case, did he get off due to unconstitutional warrant. Thinking it may be a possible casenote.

Daryl Strawberry

Anyone have any key helpful words/phrases to look out for in identifying a topic that's part of a question that may not be immediately obvious? I always seem to miss the sneaky ones

tiger_cub

Troels Hartmann wrote: »

Looks like City Colleges didn't produce (publicly at least) any night before notes this time? That's annoying because I found the Tort and Equity ones very helpful previously

Also, I hope I'm not the only person who giggles a little bit every time I think of the "John Grace Fried Chicken Ltd" case?! Every time I think of why on earth someone would call a company that, even if it is for a chipper!!

Anyway sorry, irrelevant I know. Perhaps I'm just going Ga-Ga from it all and looking for some amusement

What is the fried chicken case? can't find it in my manual.
*panicking*

FE1 student

tiger_cub wrote: »

What is the fried chicken case? can't find it in my manual.
*panicking*

Non delegation doctrine.

lawlols

tiger_cub wrote: »

What is the fried chicken case? can't find it in my manual.
*panicking*

John grace fried chicken case and mcGowan case recently 2011 & 2013 ( i think) basically randomers could make suggestions to the labour commission and it would become law. both held really old labour law Acts were unconst. Instead of saying minister acted ultra vires so maybe law is now using the principles and policies test (cityview press v an co) more strictly now.

Troels Hartmann

missindigo123 wrote: »

I think this is the case where a lesbian couple wanted their marriage recognised in the courts, they relied upon changing attitudes towards marriage. Rejected because the court adopted a historical approach to the word marriage and said that only a constitution could change that! It's no overly relevant I don't think!

Gillian and zappone also rejected because the discrimination against them was justified by A 41 and marriage being between a man and a woman

jenspondolik

FE1 student wrote: »

Can anyone confirm in the Demache v Dpp case, did he get off due to unconstitutional warrant. Thinking it may be a possible casenote.

It was a casenote last march do you think it'll come up again? I think maybe DPP v idah 2014 and the garda surveillance might come up theres just too many possibilities. Griffith sample answer has a paragraph on demance for sample answer then two pages for mahon v post publications. I can't post link but human rights Ireland have a good summary.

Im wrecked from tort and nothing done. Tempted to go to be and get up at 4.30

SteJay

Can someone please give me a brief description of the Heritage case in Constitution, I see it mentioned a lot but I can't find it anywhere

FE1 student

jenspondolik wrote: »

It was a casenote last march do you think it'll come up again? I think maybe DPP v idah 2014 and the garda surveillance might come up theres just too many possibilities. Griffith sample answer has a paragraph on demance for sample answer then two pages for mahon v post publications. I can't post link but human rights Ireland have a good summary.

Im wrecked from tort and nothing done. Tempted to go to be and get up at 4.30[/quote

Did not bring past papers with me. Unlikely he will come up again so. Going to bed now alarm set for 4am. roll on the 20th. I will sleep for a week lol

missindigo123

That paper !

sunshine and showers

missindigo123 wrote: »

That paper !

I thought it was ok! A lot of procedural stuff, though. Couldn't go near the Callely v Moylan question!

Question 4 with the doctor was non-delegation, wasn't it? Just heard someone say it was right to a livelihood and now I'm doubting myself!

missindigo123

sunshine and showers wrote: »

I thought it was ok! A lot of procedural stuff, though. Couldn't go near the Callely v Moylan question!

Question 4 with the doctor was non-delegation, wasn't it? Just heard someone say it was right to a livelihood and now I'm doubting myself!

I said livelihood too but couldn't be sure

TMJK

sunshine and showers wrote: »

I thought it was ok! A lot of procedural stuff, though. Couldn't go near the Callely v Moylan question!

Question 4 with the doctor was non-delegation, wasn't it? Just heard someone say it was right to a livelihood and now I'm doubting myself!

I threw both in to be sure!! Ha

jenspondolik

sunshine and showers wrote: »

I thought it was ok! A lot of procedural stuff, though. Couldn't go near the Callely v Moylan question!

Question 4 with the doctor was non-delegation, wasn't it? Just heard someone say it was right to a livelihood and now I'm doubting myself!

I thought it might be either so I left it awful for me anyways. Did all essay questions no cases awfull

EthanSS

What came up on the Const paper today?

sunshine and showers

I don't see more than a tiny bit of right to a livelihood in that question. Now I'm concerned about my interpretation of what all the questions were on! :eek:

jenspondolik

sunshine and showers wrote: »

I don't see more than a tiny bit of right to a livelihood in that question. Now I'm concerned about my interpretation of what all the questions were on! :eek:

I'm so allergic to doing that again. I'll buy a different manual for sept. Shocking day

marky200ie

Anyone tackle the "Catholic Teaching" essay question?

I discussed marital rights, de-facto family, abortion and homosexuality and the slowness of the legislation to change...anyone in the same ball park or do I start bracing for the repeat? 😖

Lolers11

I thought that question was freedom of expression! Oh no! I only put a tiny bit of right to livelihood. Then I put a tiny section of principles and policies at the end! Devastated.

sunshine and showers

marky200ie wrote: »

Anyone tackle the "Catholic Teaching" essay question?

I discussed marital rights, de-facto family, abortion and homosexuality and the slowness of the legislation to change...anyone in the same ball park or do I start bracing for the repeat? 😖

Yup. Also oath to be president or a judge features god, preamble is all god focused and gay marriage too. No time for abortion and the family! Said it was a matter of interpretation whether it's Catholic/Christian or not. Also there's the protection of not endorsing a specific religion.

Very subjective question. Once you backed yourself up you should be ok!


I'm off to bed. Haven't slept in days.

missindigo123

marky200ie wrote: »

Anyone tackle the "Catholic Teaching" essay question?

I discussed marital rights, de-facto family, abortion and homosexuality and the slowness of the legislation to change...anyone in the same ball park or do I start bracing for the repeat? 😖

I did that too!!

marky200ie

Lolers11 wrote: »

I thought that question was freedom of expression! Oh no! I only put a tiny bit of right to livelihood. Then I put a tiny section of principles and policies at the end! Devastated.

Hmm..I did the exact same :-/ ..found that paper far more difficult than any of the past papers!

Lolers11

marky200ie wrote: »

Hmm..I did the exact same :-/ ..found that paper far more difficult than any of the past papers!

Yea it was quite hard in terms of problem questions! Very confused now

Troels Hartmann

marky200ie wrote: »

Anyone tackle the "Catholic Teaching" essay question?

I discussed marital rights, de-facto family, abortion and homosexuality and the slowness of the legislation to change...anyone in the same ball park or do I start bracing for the repeat? 😖

I did it. Mentioned preamble, the various oaths of office, Article 44 plus Quinns, Corway, etc, and linked in with stuff about natural law, Ryan, McGee etc.

Didn't mention family or abortion or marriage. You could write a PHD thesis on that question alone so hopefully he'll be loose enough as regards what he's looking for.

On the whole though, it was a bit of a shocker of a paper. Cabinet confidentiality yet again? Referenda yet again? What is his fascination with issues that are virtual non-issues in practice?

Meanwhile nothing on property rights, nothing on equality.

I didn't do the doctor/advertising question because I presume it was livelihood mixed with a bit of freedom of expression. Didn't have enough to say so didn't bother.

I tackled the Callely v Moylan and was surprised by how much mileage I got out of it.

And for once...... the note question was a banker! I think most people would have been able to string out a couple of paragraphs on Buckley v AG and SPUC v Coogan (especially the latter because you could mention a few cases that precede it and follow it)

One on pre trial publicity was ok

The referenda essay was my 5th last-gasp-hope-and-pray effort .....

Claregal11

Does anyone know what the tort paper is marked like? Like for attempts at questions or if you did half right and stuck in a few wrong bits? Trying to work out if there's anyway I could have passed!

Troels Hartmann

Also this paper pretty much proves conclusively that he will deliberately avoid the latest hot topics

Nothing on life support etc despite PP v HSE
Nothing directly on marriage despite the upcoming referendum (ok there was the essay but that had a different focus
And nothing on constitutional interpretation despite the recent kerfuffle between Bruce Arnold and various lawyers over the Irish translation of the gay marriage amendment

sunshine and showers

Troels Hartmann wrote: »

Also this paper pretty much proves conclusively that he will deliberately avoid the latest hot topics

Nothing on life support etc despite PP v HSE
Nothing directly on marriage despite the upcoming referendum (ok there was the essay but that had a different focus
And nothing on constitutional interpretation despite the recent kerfuffle between Bruce Arnold and various lawyers over the Irish translation of the gay marriage amendment

Arguably the Catholicism question was where interpretation fit in.