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

coolusername95

ak4321 wrote: »

So maybe that’s why court allowed O’Brien / Cunningham / Kavanagh to raise on appeal? It would have been impossible for them to raise on trial as Damache wasn’t handed down at that stage?

It's not about Damache being handed down at that stage, Damache need not have been in their contemplation. It's the fact that they raised an issue with S29... they may have argued this anyway as part of their case, as in one of their many defences... it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Damache.

Mayo91

yournerd wrote: »

Ok im gonna leave out of due course of law - is that the worst idea ever?

Trial in due course is pretty big, you may want to look at maybe entitlement to advisor and evidence (obtained and preservation). 2 cases from each area should help.

For advisor theres just O Brien 2005, Gormley 2010, Gormley & White and then Barry 2016, Doyle 2017.

Then Uncost obtained evidence is DPP v JC ( in conjunction with Unconstionality e.g. Damanche)

and then a case or two from Duty to seek out and preserve.

Thats a last minute guide if you're looking at it.

SM1803

yournerd wrote: »

Ok im gonna leave out of due course of law - is that the worst idea ever?

i would maybe do right to a solicitor because of the DPP v Barry Doyle case!

yournerd

SM1803 wrote: »

i would maybe do right to a solicitor because of the DPP v Barry Doyle case!

Oh god so it is a terrible idea..
Thank you @Mayo91! Wanna do my exam too?

Mayo91

yournerd wrote: »

Oh god so it is a terrible idea..
Thank you @Mayo91! Wanna do my exam too?

Its going to be tough. Its going to drain you, but youll survive.

From what I hear, everyone thinks they do bad; but they end up passing.

So dont be too worried.

Frances94

An aspect of due course comes up in almost every paper. Access to solicitor and right to silence had new cases in 2017.

illy.m

Anyone has sample answer on SOP (i.e the bederev case) and trial in due course? Just dont have any recent cases included in my notes. My sample answers are all 2010-2013. Can exchange for other stuff I have.

BASHBAG

SM1803 wrote: »

i would maybe do right to a solicitor because of the DPP v Barry Doyle case!

Hi, my manual is obviously not up to date as I'm missing the DPP v Barry Doyle case. The most recent I have is Gormley and White.

Could you please tell me briefly what happened in that case.

Sorry if it's hassle.

Teamhrach

BASHBAG wrote: »

Hi, my manual is obviously not up to date as I'm missing the DPP v Barry Doyle case. The most recent I have is Gormley and White.

Could you please tell me briefly what happened in that case.

Sorry if it's hassle.

law society gazette has an article on it

sapphire309

BASHBAG wrote: »

Hi, my manual is obviously not up to date as I'm missing the DPP v Barry Doyle case. The most recent I have is Gormley and White.

Could you please tell me briefly what happened in that case.

Sorry if it's hassle.

Court ruled that suspects were NOT entitled to representation during interviews. Strong dissent from McKechnie J.

Mayo91

Sorry, last minute question

Can anyone give a quick breakdown of difference between the Judgements between

Gilchrist & Rogers v Sunday News Papers Ltd 2017

and

Gilchrist & Rogers v Garda Commissioner Ltd 2017


In the Sunday Newspapers they granted in camera procedure yes?

and in the Garda Commissioner case they did in CoA but overturned it in SC?

Am I right, and whats the difference

Frances94

BASHBAG wrote:

Hi, my manual is obviously not up to date as I'm missing the DPP v Barry Doyle case. The most recent I have is Gormley and White.

sapphire309 wrote:

Court ruled that suspects were NOT entitled to representation during interviews. Strong dissent from McKechnie J.

There's also the 2014 DPP circular - Solicitors are allowed attend interviews if the defendant asks for it.

BASHBAG

Teamhrach wrote: »

law society gazette has an article on it

That article is very instructive for that area. Thanks a million.

Robbie25808

sapphire309 wrote: »

Court ruled that suspects were NOT entitled to representation during interviews. Strong dissent from McKechnie J.

I thought the Doyle decision said the oppostite?

I thought the case said you should be entitled to have a solicitor present during interview.

I dont think they said it is a right but ordered the DPP to set down guidelines and the law society also set down guidelines?

Correct me if I am wrong.

Teamhrach

Robbie25808 wrote: »

I thought the Doyle decision said the oppostite?

I thought the case said you should be entitled to have a solicitor present during interview.

I dont think they said it is a right but ordered the DPP to set down guidelines and the law society also set down guidelines?

Correct me if I am wrong.

Was it not Gormley and White that led to the DPP / Law Soc setting out guidelines?
We're gonna confuse the hell out of each other - maybe we should all just read our notes/manuals/google it!

legaleagle_123

Anyone know what happened in Rowland v An Post? Fair procedures 2017 case

Mayo91

http://www.kwsols.ie/blog/employment-law-unfair-procedures-%E2%80%93-breach-of-contractual-terms-.633.html


Summary of rowland v an post

But I cant make heads or tails of it. Whats your thoughts on it and how its relevant?

Mind is giving up

illy.m

Anyone has sample answer on SOP (i.e the bederev case) and trial in due course? Just dont have any recent cases included in my notes. My sample answers are all 2010-2013. Can exchange for other stuff I have.

Teamhrach

illy.m wrote: »

Anyone has sample answer on SOP (i.e the bederev case) and trial in due course? Just dont have any recent cases included in my notes. My sample answers are all 2010-2013. Can exchange for other stuff I have.

google 'constitution project' and bederev is on there

Robbie25808

Any tips on what to write for the below question?

I was thinking that thet do not have the same rights as married families (nichalou etc)

However, would it fall down due to discrimination? Or is there such emphasis on marriage in Ireland that it will be upheld?

Sarah and Róisín have been in a long term relationship for 8 years. Sarah has four children
from a previous relationship. Róisín has no legal relationship with the children but is heavily
involved in their care.

Both Sarah and Róisín have recently lost their jobs. They have applied for local authority
housing as a co-habiting couple with four children. They are particularly hopeful as they know
that a four-bedroom unit has recently become available in their neighbourhood.
The local council apply a policy in accordance with which preference for housing is given to
married couples with children. Because Róisín has no legal relationship with the children, Sarah
is treated by the council as a single parent with four children. The council decide to allocate
the house which Sarah and Róisín wanted to a couple who are married and who have a 16 year
old son.

Sarah and Róisín are very upset by this. They want to know if there are any grounds of Irish
constitutional law upon which the decision could be challenged. Advise them.

Pl1234

What is the name of the 2017 case re silence please?

Frances94

Pl1234 wrote:

What is the name of the 2017 case re silence please?

Sweeney

Pl1234

Thank you!!!

Mayo91

https://www.pila.ie/resources/bulletin/2017/12/06/irish-high-court-rules-criminal-offence-of-withholding-information-violates-constitutional-right-to-silence

Sweeney v DPP 2017

1998 OASA Amend - regarding withholding information that may lead to the arrest of another

J Baker found it unconstitutional and vague and broad. HOWEVER if given suitable warning to the consequences of non-disclosure the provision may be deeemed constitutional

"It was however noted that the legislation may be saved by the requirement the person under questioning be afforded a suitable warning. The Court also held the offence created by the provision to be impermissibly vague and uncertain."

Robbie25808

Constitutional Law:

Whats the rule in relation to privilege for government documents? Who decides if they should be released or not and what documents? Is it only the documents that are in relation to the decision?

ak4321

Robbie25808 wrote: »

Constitutional Law:

Whats the rule in relation to privilege for government documents? Who decides if they should be released or not and what documents? Is it only the documents that are in relation to the decision?

Also wondering this. The amendenent 28.4.3 only relates to discussions I think. Not sure where things lie on documents? Have seen this come up in previous papers too

Bigdreamer123

EQUITY

If any kind soul has predictions or summary notes for equity I'd be super grateful!

EU was disastrous as ran out of time in prob questions which i personally think were obscure given the time we had to deal with them

yournerd

Good luck to everyone tomorrow and thank you to everyone who helped me out, I owe you all a deserving drink!!

Another week and it’s all over

Tony_TwoLegs

Spotted academic criticism of recent NVH case reopening Unenumerated Rights ..... just an observation 2 hours ahead of the whistle

Anastaciag94

lapetite1 wrote: »

Hi all,

First of all best of luck to everyone the other exams coming up in the interim before Property and Equity next week.

If anyone is sitting these exams also I would really appreciate thoughts on topics that are essential for Property or the topics it is advisable to study as I understand its one of the more predictable exams.

For equity then all topics that people are covering also.

Any guidance at all is welcome! Heads up everyone

I can send on a property grid if you like? It’s quite clear from that what to study!