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

Lumi77

Robbie25808 wrote: »

In relation to defence of intoxication, it is a defence for specific intent only.

If you commit an offence which is one of strict liability, is there no defence of intoxication? e.g. assault causing harm is a strict liability offence so requires no mens rea.

I think insanity applies also in the same content.

shellbm

Robbie25808 wrote: »

In relation to defence of intoxication, it is a defence for specific intent only.

If you commit an offence which is one of strict liability, is there no defence of intoxication? e.g. assault causing harm is a strict liability offence so requires no mens rea.

Yeah, thats right. The defence of self-induced intoxication only applies to crimes of specific intent and it not available to any crime which is considered one of basic intent - where the prosecution don't need to show intention on part of the accused (strict liability offences). However in the context of innocent intoxication, the "basic" and "specific" part is irrelevant. It is a defence to every criminal charge.

Thats my understanding of it anyway

LegalAnna

irishasj wrote: »

https://www.lawsociety.ie/Documents/education/Overall%20MASTER%20Timetable.pdf

Has the dates blocked off for October 2017 FE-1's as 3rd to 12th of October

Maybe don't take them as set but provisional?

Is it just me or did they only block off 7 days for the October exams? Maybe I'm just reading it wrong!

shellbm

Sorry if this is obvious, its my first time sitting criminal. Are you expected to know the section and act of every offence? I understand the main ones should be learned off but would it be expected to know say the precise section of something like forgery?

XxMCRxBabyxX

LegalAnna wrote: »

Is it just me or did they only block off 7 days for the October exams? Maybe I'm just reading it wrong!

I noticed that too but I see that Monday isn't listed for either week so presumably one of those covers exam 8

Robbie25808

shellbm wrote: »

Yeah, thats right. The defence of self-induced intoxication only applies to crimes of specific intent and it not available to any crime which is considered one of basic intent - where the prosecution don't need to show intention on part of the accused (strict liability offences). However in the context of innocent intoxication, the "basic" and "specific" part is irrelevant. It is a defence to every criminal charge.

Thats my understanding of it anyway

whats the difference between self-induced intoxication and innocent intoxication?

shellbm

Robbie25808 wrote: »

whats the difference between self-induced intoxication and innocent intoxication?

So self induced intoxication would be drinking or taking drugs or some voluntary act; DPP v Majewski for example, accused was drunk. Innocent intoxication is a situation where the accused was spiked or any situation where the person does not know they are taking an intoxication. An example would be R v Kingston, where the accused was spiked.

Gunslinger92

shellbm wrote: »

Sorry if this is obvious, its my first time sitting criminal. Are you expected to know the section and act of every offence? I understand the main ones should be learned off but would it be expected to know say the precise section of something like forgery?

I learned them anyway, and criminal was my highest mark by far

tobeginbegin

Could someone please help with a question on ownership and finding

in relation to findings below the surface, the examiner report states the occupier has best title (in the absence of the true owner) but my manual states it belongs to the owner of the freehold (in the absence of the true owner).

If an occupier is someone who exercises control over the property then this could potentially include a lessee no? which is contrary to what was said in Elwes?! I am a bit confused if anyone can help please

Robbie25808

shellbm wrote: »

So self induced intoxication would be drinking or taking drugs or some voluntary act; DPP v Majewski for example, accused was drunk. Innocent intoxication is a situation where the accused was spiked or any situation where the person does not know they are taking an intoxication. An example would be R v Kingston, where the accused was spiked.

Ah sorry yeah, I have them down as voluntary or involuntary.

Is rape and sexual assault an offence of specific intent?

Robbie25808

Quick question in relation to sexual assault.
I understand you can not consent in your sleep.

In the case of DPP v JA, the accused choked his partner, she passed out and woke up with a dildo in her ass. The accused was charged.
Now under S4 of the criminal law rape amendement act 1990, penetration of the anus with a dildo does not constitute rape.

So how was he charged?

Ferry.Man

Robbie25808 wrote: »

Quick question in relation to sexual assault.
I understand you can not consent in your sleep.

In the case of DPP v JA, the accused choked his partner, she passed out and woke up with a dildo in her ass. The accused was charged.
Now under S4 of the criminal law rape amendement act 1990, penetration of the anus with a dildo does not constitute rape.

So how was he charged?

My understanding of it was that he was charged with sexual assault, but not sure if that's 100% correct.

graduate555

Robbie25808 wrote: »

Quick question in relation to sexual assault.
I understand you can not consent in your sleep.

In the case of DPP v JA, the accused choked his partner, she passed out and woke up with a dildo in her ass. The accused was charged.
Now under S4 of the criminal law rape amendement act 1990, penetration of the anus with a dildo does not constitute rape.

So how was he charged?

It was a Canadian case, so I guess it constitutes rape there

shellbm

Ferry.Man wrote: »

My understanding of it was that he was charged with sexual assault, but not sure if that's 100% correct.

I have written in my notes that he was charged with sexual assault also

20029422

did anybody ever pay for four exams and only do 3 and pass them I'm worried between criminal and contract trying to pass them both could lead to failing both and I was happy with my first two.I have my cotract notes properly prepared and my criminal are all over the place?

the great communicator

20029422 wrote: »

did anybody ever pay for four exams and only do 3 and pass them I'm worried between criminal and contract trying to pass them both could lead to failing both and I was happy with my first two.I have my cotract notes properly prepared and my criminal are all over the place?

I wanted to do the same after last set and I ended up sitting criminal and getting 66, my notes were all over the place and I did all my learning off in two days and my answers in the exam had no structure. If you get lucky with the essays the problem questions are just listing various offences and defences and you'll be surprised how easily case names stick to the facts when you're in there and writing.

ArthurDayne

20029422 wrote: »

did anybody ever pay for four exams and only do 3 and pass them I'm worried between criminal and contract trying to pass them both could lead to failing both and I was happy with my first two.I have my cotract notes properly prepared and my criminal are all over the place?

I did this for Equity and now regret it -- absolutely worth giving criminal a shout, lot of crossover but if you know a bit about the main areas of law and even just a case or two for each, it's definitely worth doing and you could scrape it or even surprise yourself completely and do well.

All the more worth it if your contract notes are in order and ready to memorise properly in the day in between!

20029422

the great communicator wrote: »

I wanted to do the same after last set and I ended up sitting criminal and getting 66, my notes were all over the place and I did all my learning off in two days and my answers in the exam had no structure. If you get lucky with the essays the problem questions are just listing various offences and defences and you'll be surprised how easily case names stick to the facts when you're in there and writing.

I know what you mean thanks for the advice.I done 16 topics the last few days written out for contract so there neatly ready to be learned if I don't go criminal I've 3 days now ta learn contract instead of one day on criminal then Monday spent doing the exam then just Mon evening and Tuesday on contract which is huge exam cus it's so mixed

the great communicator

20029422 wrote: »

I know what you mean thanks for the advice.I done 16 topics the last few days written out for contract so there neatly ready to be learned if I don't go criminal I've 3 days now ta learn contract instead of one day on criminal then Monday spent doing the exam then just Mon evening and Tuesday on contract which is huge exam cus it's so mixed

If it was any other exam I'd agree with you but I really think criminal is doable. Best of luck whatever you go with anyway.

LegalAnna

Hi just a quick question, if I only hand in my legislation the morning of the exam how long does it take to get it during the exam? I live an hour away from the exam centre and doing that journey tomorrow when I really need to spend the time studying isn't a great prospect

shellbm

LegalAnna wrote: »

Hi just a quick question, if I only hand in my legislation the morning of the exam how long does it take to get it during the exam? I live an hour away from the exam centre and doing that journey tomorrow when I really need to spend the time studying isn't a great prospect

You should have it before 10am

shellbm

With constitutional on Friday and criminal tomorrow and property on tuesday, I have realised I am not going to get half as much learned off for property as I first thought....Is there any hope of me passing knowing only

1. succession
2. family property
3. adverse possession
4. co-ownership
5. items above and below the land/ treasure trove
6. systems of land registration
7. easements

Any insight would be great, absolutely freaked here

shellbm

20029422 wrote: »

did anybody ever pay for four exams and only do 3 and pass them I'm worried between criminal and contract trying to pass them both could lead to failing both and I was happy with my first two.I have my cotract notes properly prepared and my criminal are all over the place?

I was so close not going into constitutional on friday and was persuaded not to by others on this thread who felt the same but their papers went okay. I went in on Friday thinking I knew nothing whatsoever but its strange what comes back to you under the pressure - things I hadn't consciously learned off came back to me. Definitly give it a shot

the great communicator

shellbm wrote: »

With constitutional on Friday and criminal tomorrow and property on tuesday, I have realised I am not going to get half as much learned off for property as I first thought....Is there any hope of me passing knowing only

1. succession
2. family property
3. adverse possession
4. co-ownership
5. items above and below the land/ treasure trove
6. systems of land registration
7. easements

Any insight would be great, absolutely freaked here

Looking at the past papers you'll be fine, I've only got mortgages over you and I've had all the time in the world. I might look over estoppel because I've learned it so many times before and when it comes up it's a very easy question.

Bayb12

Estoppel is equity no?

the great communicator

Bayb12 wrote: »

Estoppel is equity no?

It's part of the property course too, usually comes up as part of the pick 2/3 question but it was a full problem in 2014. Exactly the type of question you'd get on an equity paper with an old woman and a live in housekeeper.

Robbo

Robbie25808 wrote: »

Quick question in relation to sexual assault.
I understand you can not consent in your sleep.

In the case of DPP v JA, the accused choked his partner, she passed out and woke up with a dildo in her ass. The accused was charged.
Now under S4 of the criminal law rape amendement act 1990, penetration of the anus with a dildo does not constitute rape.

So how was he charged?

Moderation: Folks can we keep the language clinical and professional when describing these scenarios. It benefit you both in the exams and your future careers.

On your question, remember that Aggravated Sexual Assault under Section 3 of the 1990 Act carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and may be a good fallback if you think the offence falls short of Section 4.

XxMCRxBabyxX

Under Duress as a defence in Criminal Law R v Hudson and Taylor gives age, circumstances and risk as the three factors for reasonable opportunity. Can someone please explain the relevance of age?

nmwcc

My first time doing criminal,

Is the following sufficient to have covered

characteristics of a crime
mens rea (strict liability, recklessness, intention)
actus reus (omissions and causation)
complicity offences (common design and aiding, abetting, counselling etc)
homocide
sexual offences
property offences
offences against justice
public order offences
incohate offences
defences (automatism, duress, intoxication, provocation, self defence)
non fatal offences against the person


Dont think I have time to do the Procedure... is this a mistake? Thanks

Lumi77

nmwcc wrote: »

My first time doing criminal,

Is the following sufficient to have covered

characteristics of a crime
mens rea (strict liability, recklessness, intention)
actus reus (omissions and causation)
complicity offences (common design and aiding, abetting, counselling etc)
homocide
sexual offences
property offences
offences against justice
public order offences
incohate offences
defences (automatism, duress, intoxication, provocation, self defence)
non fatal offences against the person


Dont think I have time to do the Procedure... is this a mistake? Thanks

You should be fine but cover or read over bail detention arrest quickly to have an idea.
And one of the courts might be a quick question
Special Criminal Court tends to come up