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

corkres1989

HappySlappy123 wrote: »

Cheers Kiwi! Would I need to cover all injunctions or would I get away with cutting down a bit?

I'd just do mareva injunctions and I'd add tracing to your list other than that that's all I'm doing.

Figsy32

Should this have me covered for tort?

Negligence
Pure economic loss/Psychiatric Damage
Professional Negligence
Public Authority Liability
Occupiers Liability
Product Liability
Trespass to the Person
Land Torts
Passing Off
Liability for Animals
Defences
Limitations
Damages

Left off Defamation, Vicarious Liability and Employers Liability. They all came up last year but wondering if I should do one of them just to be sure?

sunshine and showers

I just can't wrap my head around Section 7(3) of the Criminal Law Act 1997. I understand the concept of an accessory after the fact, it's just this one subsection that's getting me. If someone could break it down for me in plain English, I'd be much obliged!

7.—(1) Any person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of an indictable offence shall be liable to be indicted, tried and punished as a principal offender.

(2) Where a person has committed an arrestable offence, any other person who, knowing or believing him or her to be guilty of the offence or of some other arrestable offence, does without reasonable excuse any act with intent to impede his or her apprehension or prosecution shall be guilty of an offence.

(3) If, upon the trial on indictment of an arrestable offence, it is proved that the offence charged, or some other offence of which the accused might on that charge be found guilty, was committed but it is not proved that the accused was guilty of it, the accused may be found guilty of an offence under subsection (2) of which it is proved that he or she is guilty in relation to the offence charged, or that other offence.

kiwi33

corkres1989 wrote: »

I'd just do mareva injunctions and I'd add tracing to your list other than that that's all I'm doing.

I would also do mandatory interlocutory injunctions and quia timet - quia timet is very simple and mandatory interlocutory injunctions the same type questions comes up over and over again so its easy to have an essay prepared

Simplyliving04

sunshine and showers wrote: »

I just can't wrap my head around Section 7(3) of the Criminal Law Act 1997. I understand the concept of an accessory after the fact, it's just this one subsection that's getting me. If someone could break it down for me in plain English, I'd be much obliged!

I'm open to correction here as I'm not doing criminal this time so its nearly six months since I looked at this but I think it just means that if x is up for robbery but is found not guilty, x could still be convicted for aiding and abetting robbery

sunshine and showers

Simplyliving04 wrote: »

I'm open to correction here as I'm not doing criminal this time so its nearly six months since I looked at this but I think it just means that if x is up for robbery but is found not guilty, x could still be convicted for aiding and abetting robbery

That's what I thought it said, but how can you be guilty of aiding and abetting a robbery you didn't commit? That's the part I'm confused with.

kiwi33

sunshine and showers wrote: »

That's what I thought it said, but how can you be guilty of aiding and abetting a robbery you didn't commit? That's the part I'm confused with.

You are guilty because you didn't commit the robbery but you helped someone else to commit a robbery by either driving them to the scene or keep watch for them etc. knowing what they intended to do

sunshine and showers

kiwi33 wrote: »

You are guilty because you didn't commit the robbery but you helped someone else to commit a robbery by either driving them to the scene or keep watch for them etc. knowing what they intended to do

No it's specifically you can be found not guilty of committing the arrestable offence, but guilty of being an accessory after the fact. I'm just not sure who you're meant to have been an accessory TO if you didn't do it.

kiwi33

sunshine and showers wrote: »

No it's specifically you can be found not guilty of committing the arrestable offence, but guilty of being an accessory after the fact. I'm just not sure who you're meant to have been an accessory TO if you didn't do it.

An accessory after the fact is someone who knows that a crime has occurred but nonetheless helps to conceal it. it can be known as obstructing justice or harboring a fugitive.

sunshine and showers

kiwi33 wrote: »

An accessory after the fact is someone who knows that a crime has occurred but nonetheless helps to conceal it. it can be known as obstructing justice or harboring a fugitive.

Thanks. I think it's just worded in a really convoluted way. So basically if you're found not guilty of a robbery, that doesn't preclude you from being found guilty of being an accessory after the fact to the robbery if you tried to impede the course of justice helping the actual perpetrator of the robbery?

Mileyt

kiwi33 wrote:

do they take legislation if it has a solicitors firm name or stamp on it. Work has the new companies act but they have put there name on it.

Hi kiwi if it's a bloombury but if the cover is a work one they said no to me.

kiwi33

sunshine and showers wrote: »

Thanks. I think it's just worded in a really convoluted way. So basically if you're found not guilty of a robbery, that doesn't preclude you from being found guilty of being an accessory after the fact to the robbery if you tried to impede the course of justice helping the actual perpetrator of the robbery?

exactly! It can be a riddle sometimes trying to figure out what they are saying. Never ending sentences really grind my gears.

hullaballoo

The easiest way to visualise aiding and abetting before/during/after the fact is the gruesome example of spousal murder. I'll use the boring H, W, A, B and C to describe the parties.

W wants to murder H because he is a wealthy bar owner that serves as a popular truckers' stop as well as commuters and people going home for weekends etc. She is unsure if she can go through with it but talks to her friend, A, who convinces her to do it and helps to plan the murder. A is an accessory before the fact.

W is petite and H is a large man who could easily overpower W. So, W enlists one of her lovers, B's, help to hold H down while she cuts his throat. B is an accessory during (and after - see below) the fact.

W and B take the body out back and bury H's now lifeless and mostly bloodless (H's blood having been left behind at the scene of the crime) corpse under the shed floor.

Unfortunately, W and B cannot scrub away the blood so they enlist the help of C who is a "forensic cleaner" and has the capacity to remove all evidence of blood from the scene. C is an accessory after the fact. (I should say that C could possibly escape liability, but in my above fiction, the Prosecution are able to show the C knew there had been a murder and this was the blood of the victim.)


Rather annoyingly, while the Criminal Law Act 1997 created specific secondary offences, somewhat idiotically, the Act abolished the common law offence of "misprision of a felony" by abolishing the distinction between misdemeanour and felony. Misprision was where a person knew a felony had been committed but concealed or failed to report the felony to the relevant authorities. The offences under the 1997 Act are nowhere near as broad.

Dublad2012

In the most general terms, could someone please explain the difference between trespass to the person in tort and non fatal offences against person in criminal?

Like why have tort based actions at all?

Thanks

lawbear

Hey, all those enduring constitutional at the minute, is there any topics ye are feeling ye are going to concentrate on more?or any notions as to anything that's due to come up?
I'm trying to cover everything, but nearly had a breakdown last night in bed thinking I'm so unprepared. Its my final three, lose a training contract if I don't pass. So even any tips from those who passed constitutional before would be hugely appreciated.
Thanks a mil study buddies

oraghabd

Can anyone in simple terms explain Art 34 - selling arrangements to me? The more I look at it, the less it is clicking with me.

I've a real feeling it's very easy, but it's just a blindspot at the moment. Thanks

chunkylover4

Dublad2012 wrote: »

In the most general terms, could someone please explain the difference between trespass to the person in tort and non fatal offences against person in criminal?

Like why have tort based actions at all?

Thanks

So people can recover compensation for being assaulted?

fe1fun

Trying to cover too much I think and it's not going great. What would be ok to leave out of Equity?

kiwi33

chunkylover4 wrote: »

So people can recover compensation for being assaulted?

Yeah if they make a personal injuries application

Tyler Durdenn

chunkylover4 wrote: »

So people can recover compensation for being assaulted?

There are different standards of proof required for each.

Criminal: Beyond reasonable doubt.
Tort: Balance of probabilities.

A criminal case may fail in reaching the requisite standard of proof, but a tort case from the same incident may be successful if it is proven on the balance of probabilities, and thus damages may be awarded.

Dublad2012

Tyler Durdenn wrote: »

There are different standards of proof required for each.

Criminal: Beyond reasonable doubt.
Tort: Balance of probabilities.

A criminal case may fail in reaching the requisite standard of proof, but a tort case from the same incident may be successful if it is proven on the balance of probabilities, and thus damages may be awarded.

Thanks lads! Feel right thick now, ha.

lawgal

Does anyone doing prep courses for criminal or anyone in general know if there's anything that can be left out? The q's that came up as essays in the last sitting are highly unlikely to appear again or if so as part of a problem would that be correct? My grids aren't up to date just wondering is it learn everything or any leeway to leave anything out

Hunchback

hullaballoo wrote: »

The easiest way to visualise aiding and abetting before/during/after the fact is the gruesome example of spousal murder. I'll use the boring H, W, A, B and C to describe the parties.

W wants to murder H because he is a wealthy bar owner that serves as a popular truckers' stop as well as commuters and people going home for weekends etc. She is unsure if she can go through with it but talks to her friend, A, who convinces her to do it and helps to plan the murder. A is an accessory before the fact.

W is petite and H is a large man who could easily overpower W. So, W enlists one of her lovers, B's, help to hold H down while she cuts his throat. B is an accessory during (and after - see below) the fact.

W and B take the body out back and bury H's now lifeless and mostly bloodless (H's blood having been left behind at the scene of the crime) corpse under the shed floor.

Unfortunately, W and B cannot scrub away the blood so they enlist the help of C who is a "forensic cleaner" and has the capacity to remove all evidence of blood from the scene. C is an accessory after the fact. (I should say that C could possibly escape liability, but in my above fiction, the Prosecution are able to show the C knew there had been a murder and this was the blood of the victim.)


Rather annoyingly, while the Criminal Law Act 1997 created specific secondary offences, somewhat idiotically, the Act abolished the common law offence of "misprision of a felony" by abolishing the distinction between misdemeanour and felony. Misprision was where a person knew a felony had been committed but concealed or failed to report the felony to the relevant authorities. The offences under the 1997 Act are nowhere near as broad.

That's a really generous well explained answer! I've done Criminal already, but just saying, like :cool:

Hunchback

Tyler Durdenn wrote: »

There are different standards of proof required for each.

Criminal: Beyond reasonable doubt.
Tort: Balance of probabilities.

A criminal case may fail in reaching the requisite standard of proof, but a tort case from the same incident may be successful if it is proven on the balance of probabilities, and thus damages may be awarded.

And also, criminal offences are prosecuted by the State (as opposed to a civil case being brought by the victim) because the State deems whatever crime that was committed to be a crime against the State, effectively reducing the victim to the role of witness

Fe1r

Has anyone any advice for constitutional? What are people covering? I've narrowed it down to 17 chapters but I'm really panicking I won't get it covered in time.

chunkylover4

Fe1r wrote: »

Has anyone any advice for constitutional? What are people covering? I've narrowed it down to 17 chapters but I'm really panicking I won't get it covered in time.

What are you leaving out?

Fe1r

chunkylover4 wrote: »

What are you leaving out?

I'm leaving out the preamble, nation/people/state/sovereignty,war, international law, right to silence, jury trial, personal liberty and article 45, abortion, dwelling and assembly.

What do you think?

Scarymary13

I am finding it very hard to limit done contract. What topics are people focusing on?

telephone

Scarymary13 wrote: »

I am finding it very hard to limit done contract. What topics are people focusing on?

I'm doing Offer & Acceptance, Consideration, Estoppel, Mistake, Misrepresentaiton, Consumer Protection, Discharge and Remedies and possibly Terms as a fall back on the day.

Mileyt

Hi

Do you have a nutshell , I find with constitutional pick the main topics cover them and know a bit about equality/ personal rights / preamble / socio / enumerated rights and unenumerated rights because with these topics you can nearly throw into every question ....defo know separation of powers know most main topics perhaps leaving one out out but know a little about a lot ...I hope that helps a little! Best is read the topics and be able to explain in your own head what they are about they will stick then rather than trying to remember bulks of information straight from the book.