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

Yoop

Redo91 wrote: »

Could someone clarify for me if the case of DPP v Gormley where Finnegan J refers to "colourable manoeuvres" is the same case as the joint cases of DPP v Gormley and DPP v White? My manual seems to refer to them as separate cases.

Also in the case of Parsons v Kavanagh was the defendant attempting to operate a bus service without a statutory licence as required which was a breach of the applicants right to a livelihood?

You're right about Parsons v Kavanagh; right to earn a livelihood entails an entitlement to be protected against those operating illegally.

anosullivan

graduate555 wrote: »

How crucial is it to know those cases from the UCD lecture? Id be way more comfortable sticking with my own materials at this stage

Pretty crucial apparently. He likes recent case law

shellbm

Does anyone known if the Red Cow is still charging for parking ??

MeganC1554

shellbm wrote: »

Does anyone known if the Red Cow is still charging for parking ??

Yep still charging unless your staying in the red cow.

the great communicator

shellbm wrote: »

Does anyone known if the Red Cow is still charging for parking ??

It was free yesterday and they said it might be free today but will be paid again next week

Supermax1988

the great communicator wrote: »

It was free yesterday and they said it might be free today but will be paid again next week

Free?! I had to pay €8!

laurenburne

anosullivan wrote: »

Pretty crucial apparently. He likes recent case law

It might be crucial if your trying to get a high Mark but I got 53 and I used nutshells to study for the exam. No joke. I didn't have much time to study for it last sitting.

I think showing a good understanding of the principles ... when statute comes in...the main cases ..then some good reasoning and be specific to the question asked.

If you can do that for five questions I think you have a pretty good chance of passing in any of these exams

claiomh solais

Yeah I didn't take note of any recent case law in particular (barring Pringle V Government of Ireland) and I got a 58 in Constitutional last Oct.

5 Answers, sound reasoning, throw in some cases and you're looking at a good chance of a pass!

kevin125

That exam was disastrous. Used the City College manual and found it all over the place. Would anyone reccomend the Independent College manual for the next sitting?

MeganC1554

What did people address or think should have been addressed in question 7 of the constitution paper? Doing a post mortem already.

odwyer94

MeganC1554 wrote: »

What did people address or think should have been addressed in question 7 of the constitution paper? Doing a post mortem already.

I talked about non-delegation and quasi-judicial bodies... Don't want to know if I was wrong because I'm finished now and im going to focus on enjoying the freedom lol

MeganC1554

odwyer94 wrote: »

MeganC1554 wrote: »

What did people address or think should have been addressed in question 7 of the constitution paper? Doing a post mortem already.

I talked about non-delegation and quasi-judicial bodies... Don't want to know if I was wrong because I'm finished now and im going to focus on enjoying the freedom lol

Brilliant thanks. I focused on the same. Was starting to doubt myself.

odwyer94

Good stuff, that's reassuring anyway! :-)

Thought the paper wasn't too bad anyway, found the religion question a bit tough so I attempted a sixth question and got halfway through. Hope I did enough to pass and just happy to be finished now.

Good luck to everyone with the remaining exam(s?)!!!

the great communicator

kevin125 wrote: »

That exam was disastrous. Used the City College manual and found it all over the place. Would anyone reccomend the Independent College manual for the next sitting?

The city colleges manual is a joke, but I did the course and new lecturer and his class notes are fantastic. He's re writing the manual too.

Lumi77

Guys
Was question 4 freedom of expression and press?
And question 3 what did anyone think it was
Thank you
Really stressed now

Redo91

the great communicator wrote: »

The city colleges manual is a joke, but I did the course and new lecturer and his class notes are fantastic. He's re writing the manual too.

Tell me about it! My manual is from the last sitting and it talked about Referendums that took place in 2011 and said they were yet to take place. Didn't even mention to amendment to Article 42.5.

Lindyloo 1

What that manual may have lacked, their former constitutional lecturer made up for in spades, he was incredible. He gave a very holistic understanding of constitutional law which is definitely what got me through that subject.

shellbm

Lumi77 wrote: »

Guys
Was question 4 freedom of expression and press?
And question 3 what did anyone think it was
Thank you
Really stressed now

What was question 4 again?

shellbm

Was the question on Paul and the Bank about the public administration of justice under 34.1 and the conflicting right of privacy/right to good name ?

shellbm

That question on religion and the freedom of conscience...regretted it the second I started it but it was too late. I ended up discussing the McGee v AG and principles along those lines but genuinely could have got 0 marks

the great communicator

shellbm wrote: »

Was the question on Paul and the Bank about the public administration of justice under 34.1 and the conflicting right of privacy/right to good name ?

Yeah definitely.

Redo91

shellbm wrote: »

Was the question on Paul and the Bank about the public administration of justice under 34.1 and the conflicting right of privacy/right to good name ?

Also a bit of freedom of expression too.

Lumi77

shellbm wrote: »

Was the question on Paul and the Bank about the public administration of justice under 34.1 and the conflicting right of privacy/right to good name ?

Yes the one advise the Irish observer

Lumi77

Anyone do question 3 with Rachel and her dad ill?

the great communicator

Lumi77 wrote: »

Anyone do question 3 with Rachel and her dad ill?

I didn't, I think it might have been Sinnot/TD etc though but I'm not sure.

Redo91

Lumi77 wrote: »

Anyone do question 3 with Rachel and her dad ill?

Ya that was my last one. Not really sure what was going on there. Said the delay was ok because it was to ensure the treatment was safe. Just mentioned deference there. Then threw the kitchen sink at the exclusion of the dad. Mentioned equality as he was excluded because of a human characteristic (his health) but don't really think it applies. Also mentioned a few cases on socio economic rights. Briefly mentioned Fleming and locus standi. Concluded the only way she could possibly challenge it was there was no real logic in the 6 month cut off point but said she probably wouldn't be successful.

I barely got it done on time and I basically just threw everything down on the page but hopefully it's enough to get me over the line.

Lumi77

the great communicator wrote: »

I didn't, I think it might have been Sinnot/TD etc though but I'm not sure.

I thought was 3 issues
Non justiciability resource based issue
Right to life
Bodily integrity and threw in a bit of locus standi
Pfff I hope I went the right way

kevin125

Would people reccommend the Independent College manual for Constitution?

the great communicator

the great communicator wrote: »

Bederev is a banker.

If it's not on the paper in some form I'll fly to Turkey on Monday morning, cross the southern border under cover of night and pledge my undying allegiance to the caliphate. And that's a promise.

Fe1 2017

kevin125 wrote: »

Would people reccommend the Independent College manual for Constitution?

The City colleges one is missing a lot. The independent one is definitely better even though it's a good bit longer.