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

Law1997

Molly347 wrote: »

to everyone freaking out, if this is yer first time sitting these, please just keep yer heads. I know its easier said than done but I sat 4 for the first time in October and was in yer exact position and couldn't stop crying in the run up to it because i was so stressed. I'm definitely calmer now with 4 under my belt but I promise that half the anxiety is just the fear of the unknown and the build up to them.

Someone said to me before my first sitting, think of every single trainee you know - they all passed these at some point, so why can't you?

Thanks for this! Would you believe I sat my first 4 in October, passed them, and am still freaking out haha. The joys.

Suzannec

Law1997 wrote: »

So so true. Roll on 2 weeks time when we can sleep and Netflix without guilt! Good luck

Cant wait for the guilt free tv!! Best of luck to you too

nmurphy1441

Criminal

Regarding the test for provocation, to defeat a defence of provocation, does the prosecution need to prove either or both of the tests set in MacEoin?

alice.n

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

Criminal

Regarding the test for provocation, to defeat a defence of provocation, does the prosecution need to prove either or both of the tests set in MacEoin?

No, Boyle and Mullane confirmed afterwards that it's a strictly subjective test. Although Davis followed and held the accused did not have a defence of provocation because there was no objective act of provocation (accused's girlfriend wouldn't account for where she had been).
The CoA said obiter that this casts a shadow of doubt onto the test but for now it's considered to be subjective.

That's my understanding anyway!

iamanengine

Well...time to start dramatically cutting topics for Constitutional I think!

Louis Litt

iamanengine wrote: »

Well...time to start dramatically cutting topics for Constitutional I think!

yep few topics have been binned already today!

Law000

iamanengine wrote: »

Well...time to start dramatically cutting topics for Constitutional I think!

In the process of cutting myself...does Education itself appear much !? Thinking of cutting education right to life equality and interpretation

Wonderstruck

alice.n wrote: »

No, Boyle and Mullane confirmed afterwards that it's a strictly subjective test. Although Davis followed and held the accused did not have a defence of provocation because there was no objective act of provocation (accused's girlfriend wouldn't account for where she had been).
The CoA said obiter that this casts a shadow of doubt onto the test but for now it's considered to be subjective.

That's my understanding anyway!

My page refreshed and deleted everything so no point retyping this all arghhhh but I will quote the LRC

"Thus two
plausible interpretations of the MacEoin test are possible; it can be
seen as:
(i) a partly subjective/partly objective test where both
subjectivity and proportionality are given equal
weight; or
(ii) a purely subjective test which only takes the
proportionality of the accused’s reaction into
consideration when weighing up the overall
evidence."

So really is the test (i) or (ii)? It's (ii) (because of the reasons the learned poster above me has said). All you have to do is get your guy in the witness box to say I "i snapped i couldnt take that crowbanger no longer!!" and the crazier your story (disproportionate) the less likely the jury are going to buy what he says.

LJones18

Hasn't been up for the last 2 years, so chance it may come up. Question on changes from Children's Rights Ref / Insertion of Art 42A perhaps?

ahhhhhFE1s

Law000 wrote: »

In the process of cutting myself...does Education itself appear much !? Thinking of cutting education right to life equality and interpretation

Have very little on education, cut right to life, equality and freedom of religion

SwD

ahhhhhFE1s wrote: »

Have very little on education, cut right to life, equality and freedom of religion

A logical dissection, same for me.

iamanengine

How are people approaching right to liberty? Seems really broad

Cutting Privacy, up last two sittings

Hamerzan Sickles

Re Criminal, if secondary participation comes up, are you supposed to discuss the doctrine of common design also? And how do you differentiate between them? From my notes it seems really arbitrary, like there's no clear distinction as to why the court would choose one charge or another.

user115

iamanengine wrote: »

How are people approaching right to liberty? Seems really broad

Cutting Privacy, up last two sittings

It has come up every sitting either by FOE or privacy since 2015. He writes alot about privacy and media law, I'm covering it, seems like a topic that will appear especially with foe, I'd do it if you can like just read over your notes.

You would be so surprised that a quick read over does stay in your head. I remember I cut defamation last sitting after doing notes weeks before on it, did not revise my notes, literally threw my eye over it night before and it was on paper I got a 12 for a very basic answer that was all over the place. It's worth even briefly going over it

user115

LJones18 wrote: »

Hasn't been up for the last 2 years, so chance it may come up. Question on changes from Children's Rights Ref / Insertion of Art 42A perhaps?

I think so, comes up often on previous papers.

nmurphy1441

Hamerzan Sickles wrote: »

Re Criminal, if secondary participation comes up, are you supposed to discuss the doctrine of common design also? And how do you differentiate between them? From my notes it seems really arbitrary, like there's no clear distinction as to why the court would choose one charge or another.

I would discuss everything!!!! Even throw in conspiracy too.

Secondary participation refers to aids, abets, counsels or procures a crime. Like a getaway driver could be guilty of murder as an accomplice because he aided the perpetrators escape.

Common design is slightly different in that a group come to an agreement to commit a crime. Everyone who agrees to this and it happens is guilty of that crime through common design. Don’t forget though that it’s what is tactically agreed, if someone goes beyond what was agreed, the others would not be guilty. Let’s say they agree to commit assault and the assault happens but a person in the group ends up stabbing the victim and killing him. Only he would be guilty of murder as he went beyond what was agreed.

That’s what I make it to be anyway!

user115

Constitutional

Would you be covered for a question on JR if you just spoke about locus standi, justicability, fair procedures and proportionality cause they are all parts of it aren't they?

Is there specific qs on particular topic on JR when it does come up or is it usually general q?

Kinda getting bit worried I won't have time to do extra topics, I will have done:
- SOP
- Property rights and liveihood
- Privacy, FOE, FOA
- Liberty
-Fair procedures
- Constit intper
-AG and president
-locus standi
- Family and 42a

Do you think that is really chancing it? I was gonna do art 38,1 but no time, under pressure to even get that done

Anything super obvious I should do or would that cover 5?

EmmaO94

Criminal predictions...?!

law_struggles

Criminal

Does anyone know the main sections from the 2017 Act we should have for the exam?

Thank you

rightytighty

On the NB notes, there are roughly three cases that outline the difficulty caused by the subjective test for provocation. Could anyone who knows briefly summarise what they say? I only have MacEoin, Kelly, and Mullane in my notes! Would be so grateful.

Molly347

can anyone confirm if you are allowed to start writing before everyone has their papers? I sat Fe1s in october but can't remember if it was the writing paper or the exam book that was on the table when we came in and what we were handed later. Can you start writing as soon as you get the second booklet? or do you have to wait until everyone has the papers? Or can you open the first booklet as soon as you sit down?

innako

Criminal

Help! Anyone has anything on the Domestic Violence Act 2018?
Tia

Suzannec

Any kind soul have notes on liberty that they want to share. I was going to leaving it out but starting to freak out that it might show

ahona

Can I afford to leave out
- Participation/Complicity
- Inchoate Offence?

iamanengine

ahona wrote: »

Can I afford to leave out
- Participation/Complicity
- Inchoate Offence?

I did Criminal last sitting, left out both of those, pretty sure they both came up in separate questions (can't remember for sure) but I still had 5 Qs, take from that what you will!

I think I had covered pretty much everything else though

CDarrall

ahona wrote: »

Can I afford to leave out
- Participation/Complicity
- Inchoate Offence?

I did criminal last sitting- both came up twice! I found it handy to have a couple of case names to throw in to a problem question just to get an extra mark here or there. I didn't even learn the topic- just a few case names and knew where to put them in.

supercreative

law_struggles wrote: »

Criminal

Does anyone know the main sections from the 2017 Act we should have for the exam?

Thank you

As far as I know:

-sections 3-8 child-specific offenses
-section 16 intercourse with a child under 15
-section 17 intercourse with a child under 17
-section 21 sexual contact with a protected person
-section 48 consent

But there may be more, that's what I have anyway!

nmurphy1441

supercreative wrote: »

As far as I know:

-sections 3-8 child-specific offenses
-section 16 intercourse with a child under 15
-section 17 intercourse with a child under 17
-section 21 sexual contact with a protected person
-section 48 consent

But there may be more, that's what I have anyway!

Just know these and know what a person in authority and relevant person is too!!!

LJones18

CRIMINAL

For Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person, Does DPP v Brown (2018) overruling Minister for Justice v Dolny mean that Consent is no longer a defence for any kind of Assault?

For example would it change how a case like R v Aitken (1992) would have been decided if today?

Any help on the area of consent and assault would be great!

the baby bull elephant

LJones18 wrote: »

CRIMINAL

For Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person, Does DPP v Brown (2018) overruling Minister for Justice v Dolny mean that Consent is no longer a defence for any kind of Assault?

For example would it change how a case like R v Aitken (1992) would have been decided if today?

Any help on the area of consent and assault would be great!

My understanding is that consent is a defence for s2 and 3 assault but not s4.

TheLawGuy

Property - Adverse Possession

Could someone please tell me what was the question on Adverse Possession in March 2019?

TIA

iamanengine

Constitutional

Does anyone have notes on PP v Judges of the Circuit Court? I can't really make sense of it. Also in Eoin Carolin's slides he has this down under remedies but I don't have anything on how it relates to that at all, just have that he was granted locus standi

nmurphy1441

CDarrall wrote: »

I did criminal last sitting- both came up twice! I found it handy to have a couple of case names to throw in to a problem question just to get an extra mark here or there. I didn't even learn the topic- just a few case names and knew where to put them in.

I agree with that!!! Even know the AR and MR of the inchoate offences and that will help!

Sineaddh

I have left EU very late and really struggle with the subject.

Would anyone have any advice as to how best to tackle it?
Which topics to focus on?

TIA!

Louis Litt

Constitutional

Are ppl covering all of SOP? I'm thinking of doing:

Oir - Kerins/O'Brien, IR, Referendums
Legislature - just be able to mention P&P test and UV
Courts - Admin of Justice in public

Judiciary to be left off.

TCPIP

For Gilchrist & Rogers, is there anything notable to be taken from the CoA decision or is it just repetition of the HC?

PerryMason2020

rightytighty wrote: »

On the NB notes, there are roughly three cases that outline the difficulty caused by the subjective test for provocation. Could anyone who knows briefly summarise what they say? I only have MacEoin, Kelly, and Mullane in my notes! Would be so grateful.

I believe the issue in each case was in the various trial judges' directions to the respective juries on the plea of provocation - how it applies and the perspective the jury is to look at. There is a risk of the trial judges veering a bit too close to introducing too much of an objective element rather than clarifying that it is subjective with proportionality only as to credibility of plea of provocation. In the recent case of Webster, the trial judge noted that it was something of a graveyard for trial judges when charging juries.

Just a general note on provocation, the Court of Criminal Appeal has noted the area as being a minefield and confusing for lawyers, judges and juries!

PerryMason2020

Molly347 wrote: »

can anyone confirm if you are allowed to start writing before everyone has their papers? I sat Fe1s in october but can't remember if it was the writing paper or the exam book that was on the table when we came in and what we were handed later. Can you start writing as soon as you get the second booklet? or do you have to wait until everyone has the papers? Or can you open the first booklet as soon as you sit down?

I'd imagine that everyone starts at the same time and when told to do so.

Supermax1988

PerryMason2020 wrote: »

I'd imagine that everyone starts at the same time and when told to do so.

You’d think but in October we were told we could start once we got the exam paper which was kind of annoying for those of us a the back of the hall!

iamanengine

Constitutional is absolute madness.

I gave myself 15mins to study per topic, and since this morning (with breaks) I still haven't covered everything I want to cover!

rightytighty

I just phoned Neptune Stadium and was told the venue won’t be open until 9!

rightytighty

PerryMason2020 wrote: »

I believe the issue in each case was in the various trial judges' directions to the respective juries on the plea of provocation - how it applies and the perspective the jury is to look at. There is a risk of the trial judges veering a bit too close to introducing too much of an objective element rather than clarifying that it is subjective with proportionality only as to credibility of plea of provocation. In the recent case of Webster, the trial judge noted that it was something of a graveyard for trial judges when charging juries.

Just a general note on provocation, the Court of Criminal Appeal has noted the area as being a minefield and confusing for lawyers, judges and juries!

Thank you!

PerryMason2020

Supermax1988 wrote: »

You’d think but in October we were told we could start once we got the exam paper which was kind of annoying for those of us a the back of the hall!

What?!? That's mad!! Bit unfair for those left waiting.

PerryMason2020

rightytighty wrote: »

I just phoned Neptune Stadium and was told the venue won’t be open until 9!

Fingers crossed for a dry day so tomorrow!!

rightytighty

PerryMason2020 wrote: »

Fingers crossed for a dry day so tomorrow!!

I’m going to be there a lot earlier so I hope something changes lol

SwD

PerryMason2020 wrote: »

What?!? That's mad!! Bit unfair for those left waiting.

They drop them from the front to back and collect them from front to back. Seems fair enough.

CDarrall

iamanengine wrote: »

Constitutional

Does anyone have notes on PP v Judges of the Circuit Court? I can't really make sense of it. Also in Eoin Carolin's slides he has this down under remedies but I don't have anything on how it relates to that at all, just have that he was granted locus standi

The point on remedies is that the court can declare a provision of the constitution to be unconstitutional from a date other than 1937 (because declaring unconstitutionality from 1937 might not be workable in most cases). They said it would be "absurd and impossible" for the court to pinpoint the exact moment in time when society evolved & the provision became unworkable- therefore it could be appropriate to mark the date of the decision as the date of the unconstitutionality. O'Donnell J said that provisions can evolve into being unworkable & unconstitutional because of (1) legislative change (2) constitutional change and (3) societal change.

However- Clarke CJ stated that the entire judgment regarding the remedy & the date of unconstitutionality was on an obiter basis.

EAL2019

Sineaddh wrote: »

I have left EU very late and really struggle with the subject.

Would anyone have any advice as to how best to tackle it?
Which topics to focus on?

TIA!

Institutions, General Principles of EU Law, Direct Effect and Member State Liability, Judicial Review and Free Movement of Goods are all almost guaranteed questions. Like I’d be surprised if you didn’t get at least 4 questions from covering those.

To maximise my chances I’m also doing Free Movement of Workers and EU citizenship (come up fairly regularly and tend to come up together when they do) and also Anti-Discrimination/Equality because it hasn’t come up in a while.

Competition is another one that comes up regularly but unfortunately it’s just too big for me to realistically cover at this stage.

Very much open to feedback/thoughts on this from anyone else doing EU!

user115

CDarrall wrote: »

The point on remedies is that the court can declare a provision of the constitution to be unconstitutional from a date other than 1937 (because declaring unconstitutionality from 1937 might not be workable in most cases). They said it would be "absurd and impossible" for the court to pinpoint the exact moment in time when society evolved & the provision became unworkable- therefore it could be appropriate to mark the date of the decision as the date of the unconstitutionality. O'Donnell J said that provisions can evolve into being unworkable & unconstitutional because of (1) legislative change (2) constitutional change and (3) societal change.

However- Clarke CJ stated that the entire judgment regarding the remedy & the date of unconstitutionality was on an obiter basis.

Thanks for explaining that. Does this line up with what the SC said in their preliminary ref of the Dwyer case re mobile phone data recently? From what I understood this means that even if the EUCJ declare the current system for data collection in Ireland not in line with GDPR and hence not in line with what is meant to be current national standards that evidence is inadmissible because the manner in which it was got was unconstitutional. However it is only inadmissible going forward from that declaration and does not invalidate previous convictions based on the evidence got on that basis prior to that. Is this correct?

nmurphy1441

Can anyone tell me if bail came up on the criminal exam in October?