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

Louis Litt

JCreaghy wrote: »

Me too, spending way to long in certain topics and it's killing me. About to start jurisdiction of the courts but can't make head nor tail of it.

Same boat. So many topics within topics to cover. Finding it impossible to learn legislation and case law.

What procedural topics are you going with?

iamanengine

Louis Litt wrote: »

Same boat. So many topics within topics to cover. Finding it impossible to learn legislation and case law.

What procedural topics are you going with?

I had planned on covering most but at this stage I'm going to focus on right to silence and arrest/detention as they didn't come up last sitting. Will try cover courts as well

20082014

CRIMINAL

Right to silence - what cases do people have on this?

I dont think I have enough to answer a question on it and getting a bit worried...

Also, would it be very silly to leave offences of a public nature, classifications and inchoate offences out?

EmmaO94

roseyp123 wrote: »

Q1 - NFOAP & Insanity/Irresistible Impulse
Q2 - Classification of Offences
Q3 - Conspiracy/Manslaughter/Provocation
Q4 - NFOAP - mainly Battery, Robbery & Assault and then Breaking Chain of Causation
Q5 - Advising DPP on charges to be brought in 4 different scenarios
Q6 - Presumption of Innocence & Bail
Q7 - Mens Rea and Composition of Special Criminal Court
Q8 - Essay Q on Self-Defence

Really appreciate this, thank you!

ahhhhhFE1s

20082014 wrote: »

CRIMINAL

Right to silence - what cases do people have on this?

I dont think I have enough to answer a question on it and getting a bit worried...

Also, would it be very silly to leave offences of a public nature, classifications and inchoate offences out?

Ya I've only four cases on it as well so not sure I could stretch that to a full question.. Out of those three the only one I would worry about is inchoate offences even a brief overview if a problem questions involves some incomplete action but wouldn't be the end of the world either.. Below is all I have on right to silence

Right of Silence:
Protect against self-incrimination, not an absolute right in Ireland, protected by Art 38.1 of the Constitution but subject to security and public order.
• Heaney v Ireland, court looked at whether s.52 of the OATS Act 1939 unconstitutionally denied the right of silence, s.52 made it an offence to refuse to account for movements during a specific time. The accused were suspected of carrying out bombings and being part of an illegal organisation, failed to provide for movements.
• Court held that under Art 38.1, right of silence is qualified and can be restricted to maintain ‘public peace and order’.
• ECtHR disagreed with decision, held right of silence protected by Art.6 of the ECHR concerning fair procedure, agreed not absolute right but stated s.52 went too far.

Adverse Inferences from Silence
• Rock v Ireland, here accused challenged s. 19 of the CJ Act 1984, claiming it infringed the right of silence, by allowing Gardaí to draw adverse inferences if arrested with object believed to have been used in offence.
• SC held s. 19 are not unconstitutional as adverse inferences drawn cannot form basis of conviction without other evidence.
• DPP v Finnerty – inferences can only be drawn from silence where there is an appropriate statutory provision authorising it and the inferences are proportionate to the aims of the legislation.
• Re National Irish Bank - one cannot convict based on a compelled confession.

20082014

ahhhhhFE1s wrote: »

Ya I've only four cases on it as well so not sure I could stretch that to a full question.. Out of those three the only one I would worry about is inchoate offences even a brief overview if a problem questions involves some incomplete action but wouldn't be the end of the world either.. Below is all I have on right to silence

Right of Silence:
Protect against self-incrimination, not an absolute right in Ireland, protected by Art 38.1 of the Constitution but subject to security and public order.
• Heaney v Ireland, court looked at whether s.52 of the OATS Act 1939 unconstitutionally denied the right of silence, s.52 made it an offence to refuse to account for movements during a specific time. The accused were suspected of carrying out bombings and being part of an illegal organisation, failed to provide for movements.
• Court held that under Art 38.1, right of silence is qualified and can be restricted to maintain ‘public peace and order’.
• ECtHR disagreed with decision, held right of silence protected by Art.6 of the ECHR concerning fair procedure, agreed not absolute right but stated s.52 went too far.

Adverse Inferences from Silence
• Rock v Ireland, here accused challenged s. 19 of the CJ Act 1984, claiming it infringed the right of silence, by allowing Gardaí to draw adverse inferences if arrested with object believed to have been used in offence.
• SC held s. 19 are not unconstitutional as adverse inferences drawn cannot form basis of conviction without other evidence.
• DPP v Finnerty – inferences can only be drawn from silence where there is an appropriate statutory provision authorising it and the inferences are proportionate to the aims of the legislation.
• Re National Irish Bank - one cannot convict based on a compelled confession.

Thank you so much for those notes, I will have a look over them.

Yeah I guess you are right, I might have a quick glance over inchoate offences just so i have some sort of idea if it appears on the paper tomorrow.

so much to do and so little time

Vegetarian2017

Guys if it is any help, criminal is a really nice paper, f you can identify the issues you are flying as the questions are quite mixed and this is were you will gain marks. Don't go too in depth into topics know a little about alot just know I passed it and I mixed certain offences etc and got confused but that was down to memory loss and tiredness he could clearly see I understood the law and could apply it. So for eg i said s8 instead of s6 but applied and named the correct offence just not correct section i still passed! Hope that helps.

jewels652

DUMSURFER wrote: »

Trying to cover but nowhere near covering:

- Charitable/Cy-pres
- Secret Trust
- Prop Estoppel
- 3 Certainties
- Mandatory Interlocutory Injunction
- Tracing
- Undue Influence
- Mareva
- Trustees
- Specific Perfomance
- Rectification

Do people think this is enough? The way my time is shaping up, hard to say whether I'll get to cover Rectification or Specific Performance... What do people think I'm missing or should focus on? Not in good shape atm

I am doing the exact same hoping it’ll be enough

Smiley283

20082014 wrote: »

Thank you so much for those notes, I will have a look over them.

Yeah I guess you are right, I might have a quick glance over inchoate offences just so i have some sort of idea if it appears on the paper tomorrow.

so much to do and so little time

I went into the exam last March and answered my 5th and final question on the presumption of innocent and bail.


I was stuck for time and in a panic I started fighting about the right to silence?!??! And then I realised I knew NOTHING about the presumption on innocent so I just wrote about s.21 offences (sex with a protected person) and 2 measley lines about bail. I got an 8 in that question and 62% over all... seriously don't panic about criminal law! Just make sure you take the time to advise the accussed/ dpp in what ever question you are asked. Best of luck! :-)

LawGirl3434

Equity

In the question: a person in a fiduciary position is not entitled to make a profit or to put himself in a position where his interests and duties conflict

What is she looking for here? Obviously marking scheme less than useless. I thought obviously not to profit and rule against self-dealing, but then seeing conflict of interest - would you go into keech v stanford, agents, directors (comes under constructive trust)? She did note in the marking scheme very few people answered on the second part of not coming into conflict so I wonder if that's why?

Thanks!

scooby321

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

Equity

In the question: a person in a fiduciary position is not entitled to make a profit or to put himself in a position where his interests and duties conflict

What is she looking for here? Obviously marking scheme less than useless. I thought obviously not to profit and rule against self-dealing, but then seeing conflict of interest - would you go into keech v stanford, agents, directors (comes under constructive trust)? She did note in the marking scheme very few people answered on the second part of not coming into conflict so I wonder if that's why?

Thanks!

Which paper did you get this from? Yeah I think you're right that its the trustee's duty not to make an unauthorised profit from the trustee's fiduciary position, and if he does he holds it on constructive trust for his principal (the beneficiary)

JCormac

European Union:


Does anyone have any idea on what could possibly be the best area to cover in preparation for the exam (excluding the below topics) for the final (fifth) question?

I haven't left myself much wriggle-room at all for the exam, so just have the below areas covered for the other four exam questions:

1st Question: Direct Effect/MS Liability (Mixed problem Q)

2nd Question: FMG - Art 30/110 & Art 34 MEQ's (Problem question; possibly x2 [?])

3rd Question: Judicial Review - (Standard essay question)

4th Question: FMW/Citizenship/Equality/Discrimination - (Problem question, possibly mixed)



Torn between either Competition Law or General Principles for the 5th area, but General principles seems a bit broad to cover intensively in one day?

Thanks!

holliek

JCormac wrote: »

European Union:


Does anyone have any idea on what could possibly be the best area to cover in preparation for the exam (excluding the below topics) for the final (fifth) question?

I haven't left myself much wriggle-room at all for the exam, so just have the below areas covered for the other four exam questions:

1st Question: Direct Effect/MS Liability (Mixed problem Q)

2nd Question: FMG - Art 30/110 & Art 34 MEQ's (Problem question; possibly x2 [?])

3rd Question: Judicial Review - (Standard essay question)

4th Question: FMW/Citizenship/Equality/Discrimination - (Problem question, possibly mixed)



Torn between either Competition Law or General Principles for the 5th area, but General principles seems a bit broad to cover intensively in one day?

Thanks!

Personally I'd lean towards general principles as you already would know some of it and general knowledge from other subjects e.g. proportionality and although you need EU based cases, at least you've an understanding of the concept. You've also got flexibility with it as you won't be required to know all the principles, even if you take a look at a few - proportionality, transparency, supremacy etc.

However if you go with competition law, I highly doubt you could cover it all in one day cause its fairly heavy. I'm only looking at art 101 and 102 so I'd suggest just to do that as mergers came up in the last sitting and state aid hasn't been up in a long time.

Hope this helps!

TheLawGuy

When people talk about high pass rates in certain subjects, where do you get that information? Is there an exact percentage for each year in each subject?

sbbyrne

TheLawGuy wrote: »

When people talk about high pass rates in certain subjects, where do you get that information? Is there an exact percentage for each year in each subject?

It's in the examiner reports

supercreative

TheLawGuy wrote: »

When people talk about high pass rates in certain subjects, where do you get that information? Is there an exact percentage for each year in each subject?

In EU he says what the pass rate was in the reports, hasn't been below 70% since Oct 2013. I haven't seen them say anything about it in the reports for Equity, Property or Tort though.

holliek

Does anyone have the case facts for Telefonica v Commission?

Fitz_95

Hi lovely people, en route on the bus to the Red Cow for exams for the next few days and I’ve just realised I’ve forgotten my iPhone charger, my question is does anyone know if the hotel sell them or secondly any shops nearby where I could grab one as I’m here til Wednesday 😭

Jeremiah25

What did we make of the criminal paper?

Supermax1988

Fitz_95 wrote: »

Hi lovely people, en route on the bus to the Red Cow for exams for the next few days and I’ve just realised I’ve forgotten my iPhone charger, my question is does anyone know if the hotel sell them or secondly any shops nearby where I could grab one as I’m here til Wednesday 😭

Not sure about the hotel but there's a Circle K down the road and you'd probably get something there. It won't last you long but should see you till Wednesday!

iamanengine

Jeremiah25 wrote: »

What did we make of the criminal paper?

Thought it was ok. I didn't do complicity or inchoate so I couldn't do Q2 or Q4. I didn't do strict liability so I couldn't do Q5, so I was just happy I could answer 5!

Criminal Paper - at least what I think came up

Q1 Murder/Assault/Provocation...also intoxication and maybe self defence could probably be argued? Think it was open ended here
Q2 Burglary/Complicity/Duress? Didn't do this Q
Q3 i. Gross Negligence ii. Criminal and Dangerous Act iii. Harrassment iv. I said assault for this but I think it is probably a public order offence or something, hopefully I can pick up enough marks to pass the Q
Q4 Attempt
Q5 i. Strict Liability ii. Classification
Q6 Involuntary Manslaughter/Insanity
Q7 i. Right to Silence ii. Detention
Q8 Consent in Sexual Offences

Jeremiah25

iamanengine wrote: »

Thought it was ok. I didn't do complicity or inchoate so I couldn't do Q2 or Q4. I didn't do strict liability so I couldn't do Q5, so I was just happy I could answer 5!

Criminal Paper - at least what I think came up

Q1 Murder/Assault/Provocation...also intoxication and maybe self defence could probably be argued? Think it was open ended here
Q2 Burglary/Complicity/Duress? Didn't do this Q
Q3 i. Gross Negligence ii. Criminal and Dangerous Act iii. Harrassment iv. I said assault for this but I think it is probably a public order offence or something, hopefully I can pick up enough marks to pass the Q
Q4 Attempt
Q5 i. Strict Liability ii. Classification
Q6 Involuntary Manslaughter/Insanity
Q7 i. Right to Silence ii. Detention
Q8 Consent in Sexual Offences

Yeah I thought the same regarding Q1. Briefly discussed all 3 as they all appeared relevant.

Not a bad paper.

Daly29

Seemed a fair paper like the other years. Not my finest work but would be hoping to scrape by. Leaving rote learning to just a single day is a stressful appraoch. Was happy it wasnt raining so I had an extra five minutes trying to photograph memory my notes and trying not to walk on the LUAS track. Rinse and repeat for Equity. Really hoping I come away from this sitting with more than a study gut and some extra grey hair.

Wonderstruck

holliek wrote: »

Personally I'd lean towards general principles as you already would know some of it and general knowledge from other subjects e.g. proportionality and although you need EU based cases, at least you've an understanding of the concept. You've also got flexibility with it as you won't be required to know all the principles, even if you take a look at a few - proportionality, transparency, supremacy etc.

However if you go with competition law, I highly doubt you could cover it all in one day cause its fairly heavy. I'm only looking at art 101 and 102 so I'd suggest just to do that as mergers came up in the last sitting and state aid hasn't been up in a long time.

Hope this helps!

I agree with this advice! But part of me thinks state aid is a dark horse what with it being extremely extremely topical!

JCormac

holliek wrote: »

Personally I'd lean towards general principles as you already would know some of it and general knowledge from other subjects e.g. proportionality and although you need EU based cases, at least you've an understanding of the concept. You've also got flexibility with it as you won't be required to know all the principles, even if you take a look at a few - proportionality, transparency, supremacy etc.

However if you go with competition law, I highly doubt you could cover it all in one day cause its fairly heavy. I'm only looking at art 101 and 102 so I'd suggest just to do that as mergers came up in the last sitting and state aid hasn't been up in a long time.

Hope this helps!

Thanks again!

The general principle questions generally seem okay, judging by the marking scheme at least! - General principles it is.

I looked at the Competition Law chapter and saw how case-heavy it was and slammed that book shut with the force of a thousand suns.

Might just skim 101 & 102 to be safe.

Jenosul

Sound for this! It saved me this morning. Thank you for posting!!!

ahhhhhFE1s wrote: »

Ya I've only four cases on it as well so not sure I could stretch that to a full question.. Out of those three the only one I would worry about is inchoate offences even a brief overview if a problem questions involves some incomplete action but wouldn't be the end of the world either.. Below is all I have on right to silence

Right of Silence:
Protect against self-incrimination, not an absolute right in Ireland, protected by Art 38.1 of the Constitution but subject to security and public order.
• Heaney v Ireland, court looked at whether s.52 of the OATS Act 1939 unconstitutionally denied the right of silence, s.52 made it an offence to refuse to account for movements during a specific time. The accused were suspected of carrying out bombings and being part of an illegal organisation, failed to provide for movements.
• Court held that under Art 38.1, right of silence is qualified and can be restricted to maintain ‘public peace and order’.
• ECtHR disagreed with decision, held right of silence protected by Art.6 of the ECHR concerning fair procedure, agreed not absolute right but stated s.52 went too far.

Adverse Inferences from Silence
• Rock v Ireland, here accused challenged s. 19 of the CJ Act 1984, claiming it infringed the right of silence, by allowing Gardaí to draw adverse inferences if arrested with object believed to have been used in offence.
• SC held s. 19 are not unconstitutional as adverse inferences drawn cannot form basis of conviction without other evidence.
• DPP v Finnerty – inferences can only be drawn from silence where there is an appropriate statutory provision authorising it and the inferences are proportionate to the aims of the legislation.
• Re National Irish Bank - one cannot convict based on a compelled confession.

Jenosul

Hey everyone.

Hope all is going good in the exams for everyone!

Can someone please be so kind as to tell me what came up in last years Equity paper? Including the three part question strong v bird etc.

Also predictions welcome. I didn’t do as much as I should for equity but think I may have scraped the magic 3. I’m going to give it at shot and gamble.

Thank you in advance.

CiaranS93

Hi guys!

Anyone have the contract exam grid?

Thanks I’m advance

saphiradragon

Hi, I have one, happy to send of you dm me. I got it off someone else so I can't be sure it's entirely accurate, but can send if you want!

CiaranS93 wrote: »

Hi guys!

Anyone have the contract exam grid?

Thanks I’m advance

CiaranS93

iamanengine wrote: »

Thought it was ok. I didn't do complicity or inchoate so I couldn't do Q2 or Q4. I didn't do strict liability so I couldn't do Q5, so I was just happy I could answer 5!

Criminal Paper - at least what I think came up

Q1 Murder/Assault/Provocation...also intoxication and maybe self defence could probably be argued? Think it was open ended here
Q2 Burglary/Complicity/Duress? Didn't do this Q
Q3 i. Gross Negligence ii. Criminal and Dangerous Act iii. Harrassment iv. I said assault for this but I think it is probably a public order offence or something, hopefully I can pick up enough marks to pass the Q
Q4 Attempt
Q5 i. Strict Liability ii. Classification
Q6 Involuntary Manslaughter/Insanity
Q7 i. Right to Silence ii. Detention
Q8 Consent in Sexual Offences

Yea question 1 had a bit of everything really, all parts of murder, assault and a few defences.

I also thought same re Q3 as I did assault and threats. Never thought of public order offence!

I did talk about sexual assault and rape in Q4 also.

Onward and upward I suppose