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

monroe89

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

By the looks of it you should be fine, I'm covering the same (hopefully fine:)).

I would echo Lumi77 to read over and be somewhat familiar with arrest, detention and bail as these can tend to pop in scenarios / problems.
Looking at the courts themselves the special criminal court and court of appeal seem to be the two that crop up.
Even just to have a basic familiarity would be my two cents

20029422

is it just me or are contract papers way harder than the other subjects even reading the reports it's like you need to have the knowledge a lecturer would have the understanding you need is well above company equity and criminal I don't know about the other ones

Robbie25808

Are both Murder and Manslaughter dealt with under the Criminal Justice Act 1964?

monroe89

Robbie25808 wrote: »

Are both Murder and Manslaughter dealt with under the Criminal Justice Act 1964?

Murder is section 4 but manslaughter has no statutory definition, you need to discuss it in relation to the case law.

Robbie25808

monroe89 wrote: »

Robbie25808 wrote: »

Are both Murder and Manslaughter dealt with under the Criminal Justice Act 1964?

Murder is section 4 but manslaughter has no statutory definition, you need to discuss it in relation to the case law.

Ah perfect thanks.

wellers123

Would anyone be so gracious as to send me an updated contract grid?
What is everyone leaving out? Feels like theres not much room to leave out more than 3 or 4 chapters

the great communicator

wellers123 wrote: »

Would anyone be so gracious as to send me an updated contract grid?
What is everyone leaving out? Feels like theres not much room to leave out more than 3 or 4 chapters

What saved me for contract was getting the exam reports out and making a note of every case she mentions in the exam report. Then for the problem questions you're not so much learning full topics as specific cases from each topic that appear time and time again.
The essays are more difficult to prepare for but they do repeat and there's plenty of choice.

LLBeatle

What are the cases that you couldn't walk into contract without knowing?

wellers123

that's actually really helpful thanks i'll definitely do that too

20029422

anyone know what an innominate term is its not in my manual and is there a case?please

the great communicator

20029422 wrote: »

anyone know what an innominate term is its not in my manual and is there a case?please

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Fir_Shipping_Co_Ltd_v_Kawasaki_Kisen_Kaisha_Ltd

That's the main case and there's an Irish case too but I threw my notes away sorry.


Sorry I realise that's quite a long summary and probably unhelpful 2 days before an exam. If you google around you might get a shorter one.

20029422

the great communicator wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Fir_Shipping_Co_Ltd_v_Kawasaki_Kisen_Kaisha_Ltd

That's the main case and there's an Irish case too but I threw my notes away sorry.

ah thanks I have that case my manual just didn't use the term innominate so what it is basically is the grey area between being a warranty and condition and the test the case set out

LegalLaaaaady

What's everyone's best guess for criminal tomorrow? Does anyone know what independent colleges have guessed?

Robbie25808

Insanity:

What happens, where you are caused to enter into a state from failure to eat after taking insulin?
So this is self induced.
I have in my notes something about specific intent and basic intent but I don't understand it?

graduate555

Robbie25808 wrote: »

Insanity:

What happens, where you are caused to enter into a state from failure to eat after taking insulin?
So this is self induced.
I have in my notes something about specific intent and basic intent but I don't understand it?

It's treated the same as when you voluntarily drink and commit an offence - it is a defense to crimes of specific intent only, because he chose not to eat after taking the insulin, similar to if he chose to drink to excess. They are both types of non-insane automatism.

And be careful as it's not insanity. Insanity comes from an internal factor - in your situation, it was external (insulin)

Yoop

nmwcc wrote: »

has anyone else a CLUE what to do if you've lost your letter from the law society ?!

Mention it to the invigilators in your exam centre before it starts. They have your name and exam number on the sheet you sign so maybe if you showed your ID and explain they'll tell you what to do.

nmwcc

I am getting quite confused between Incohate offences and complicity .... In a problem question; if the offence is NOT complete - for example the person who was to killed ends up in a vegetative state; would we answer this under incitement rather than abetting ??

XxMCRxBabyxX

How essential are case names in Criminal? I'm really struggling to take them all in and remember them right now.

graduate555

nmwcc wrote: »

I am getting quite confused between Incohate offences and complicity .... In a problem question; if the offence is NOT complete - for example the person who was to killed ends up in a vegetative state; would we answer this under incitement rather than abetting ??

I asked this a while back too! I looked it up and what I gather is that for a complicity offence, the crime they were abetting has to have been committed - so in your case it wouldn't be abetting. But inchoate offences are crimes in themselves separate to the offence they were inciting, so I would think in your situation it would be incitement.. That's just my understanding!

Robbie25808

graduate555 wrote: »

I asked this a while back too! I looked it up and what I gather is that for a complicity offence, the crime they were abetting has to have been committed - so in your case it wouldn't be abetting. But inchoate offences are crimes in themselves separate to the offence they were inciting, so I would think in your situation it would be incitement.. That's just my understanding!

I thought for inchoate offences they planted it in the head of the person? The other person never thought of committing the crime?
While for aiding,abetting etc they had thought of the crime and were just encouraged?

nmwcc

The way I have interpreted it; incohate offences are where the substantive offence is not complete, so attempted murder or the conspiracy to commit murder or inciting a person to commit murder. If the crime was carried out and completed, then you would look at complicity .. could be wrong

Ferry.Man

Quick question regarding Criminal

This may be obvious but if a person commits burglary and then commits theft once inside the property. Are they charged with both offences so we discuss both?

I assume we do?

Thanks

Robbie25808

Was anybody able to find the answer our on the difference between inchoate offence and complicity?
My book says for inchoate that if the persuade l, coerce or otherwise cause another to commit a crime?
If that is the case, then the previous description doesn't work as it says cause to commit the crime?
Would really appreciate an answer☺

Becks63976

Can anybody tell me is it essential to have the Sale of Goods Act 1893 for the contract exam.

the great communicator

Does anyone know the rule for witnesses under 18 attesting a will?

Does it make the will invalid or just call the will into question? It seems to be an issue in a lot of the problems but it's not mentioned in Lyall or my manual.

kyliewyote7

the great communicator wrote: »

Does anyone know the rule for witnesses under 18 attesting a will?

Does it make the will invalid or just call the will into question? It seems to be an issue in a lot of the problems but it's not mentioned in Lyall or my manual.

I'm at a loss with this too - can't see anything the act relating to age of witnesses.
Examiner has made reference in reports to witnesses being young people but doesn't mention anything that might illuminate the issue!

ak4321

Could anyone tell me what part in particular of the landlord and tenant chapter would be best to focus on? Only starting it today because I think I need a backup

the great communicator

ak4321 wrote: »

Could anyone tell me what part in particular of the landlord and tenant chapter would be best to focus on? Only starting it today because I think I need a backup

I find that it's a horrible chapter and actually has quite a bit to cover, licenses is very handy to cover in an hour and actually comes up quite a bit

Wonderstruck

A person under 18 cannot witness a will. So the will would lose the presumption that it was been drafted correctly ie the will effectively has no valid attestation clause. (But could still be valid dependingdepending on everything else, see s 78 Succession Act (no req for, such a clause) and Scraff v Scraff). Unless I've got the wrong end of the stick or learned it allfrom wrong... uh oh

Edit: Forgot to use quotes! Can't work out how to do pn mobile

odwyer94

Becks63976 wrote: »

Can anybody tell me is it essential to have the Sale of Goods Act 1893 for the contract exam.

Nope definitely not