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

nimcdona

In relation to Locus Standi in Constitutional and the case of Construction Industry Federation v Dublin City Council (2005), can anyone tell me if it was held that the unincorporated trade association did have Locus Standi to take the case on behalf of its members or was it held that the challenge should be brought by one of the members themselves? My notes and sample answer say two different things

jewels652

nimcdona wrote: »

In relation to Locus Standi in Constitutional and the case of Construction Industry Federation v Dublin City Council (2005), can anyone tell me if it was held that the unincorporated trade association did have Locus Standi to take the case on behalf of its members or was it held that the challenge should be brought by one of the members themselves? My notes and sample answer say two different things

My notes says they did have standing to bring an action on behalf of the interest of its members.

TCPIP

nimcdona wrote: »

In relation to Locus Standi in Constitutional and the case of Construction Industry Federation v Dublin City Council (2005), can anyone tell me if it was held that the unincorporated trade association did have Locus Standi to take the case on behalf of its members or was it held that the challenge should be brought by one of the members themselves? My notes and sample answer say two different things

They did not have standing as they needed to call upon a hypothetical much like in Cahill.

jewels652 wrote: »

My notes says they did have standing to bring an action on behalf of the interest of its members.

Are you citing the HC or SC?

scooby321

Constitutional

Does anyone have a brief summary of Zalewski v Minister for Justice?

JCormac

rightytighty wrote: »

Many thanks! You don’t happen to know what they reckon for Company next week too?

No idea - Sorry! Sat Company in a previous sitting. The NB4 Notes & videos are your best bet I'd say

jewels652

TCPIP wrote: »

They did not have standing as they needed to call upon a hypothetical much like in Cahill.



Are you citing the HC or SC?

Oh really ?? It doesn’t say if it is HC or SC.
Thanks for that I’ll be changing it.

ahhhhhFE1s

jewels652 wrote: »

Oh really ?? It doesn’t say if it is HC or SC.
Thanks for that I’ll be changing it.

Ya I have they didn't have standing either..

• Construction Industry Federation v Dublin City Council – case involved a trade union and whether it had the standing to bring an action on behalf of its members. McCracken J. – the union failed to demonstrate “good practical reason” for why individually injured parties could not take the action for themselves – the individual P’s were wealthy developers and could have easily taken their own case.

ahhhhhFE1s

scooby321 wrote: »

Constitutional

Does anyone have a brief summary of Zalewski v Minister for Justice?

Ya I would love if anyone had a good one as well, read the judgment and know they challenged the Workplace Act, thought the important bit was still entitled to standing even if you have obtained your original remedy- as the dismissal of his complaints had been quashed - but would be open to correction on that

scooby321

Thoughts on purely focusing on this for Constitutional:

1 - Constitutional interpretation
2 - President
3 - Oireachtas
4 - Findings of Unconstitutionality
5 - SoP
6 - Fair Procedures (Natural & Constitutional Justice)
7 - Locus Standi
8 - Trial in Due Course
9 - Liberty
10 - FoE
11 - Family

Anything I'm stupidly leaving out?

mcgreee

Equity note predictions?

ahhhhhFE1s

scooby321 wrote: »

Thoughts on purely focusing on this for Constitutional:

1 - Constitutional interpretation
2 - President
3 - Oireachtas
4 - Findings of Unconstitutionality
5 - SoP
6 - Fair Procedures (Natural & Constitutional Justice)
7 - Locus Standi
8 - Trial in Due Course
9 - Liberty
10 - FoE
11 - Family

Anything I'm stupidly leaving out?

Maybe property rights but I'd say that's a strong range of topics without it even

lawyersuffolk

Can somebody give me summary of Callely case re privilege?? My notes are confusing

Suzannec

Covering the following for Constitutional;
1. International relations
2. Proportionality
3. Separation of powers (essay only) non del, economic, social
4. Referendums
5. The president
6. The ag
7. Locus standi
8. Freedom of expression
9. Freedom of assembly
10. Art. 34. 1
11. Family
12. Constitutional Interp.
13. Fair procedure
14. Right to earn a livelihood, property rights, privacy, bodily integrity
Freaking out…..surely this has to be enough to pass…am I leaving out anything important??

TCPIP

I'd say you could half that and still have enough.

Suzannec

TCPIP wrote: »

I'd say you could half that and still have enough.

I hope so, failed last time as I can never understand his questions, so trying to cover a little of everything and hoping for the best!

iamanengine

Suzannec wrote: »

Covering the following for Constitutional;
1. International relations
2. Proportionality
3. Separation of powers (essay only) non del, economic, social
4. Referendums
5. The president
6. The ag
7. Locus standi
8. Freedom of expression
9. Freedom of assembly
10. Art. 34. 1
11. Family
12. Constitutional Interp.
13. Fair procedure
14. Right to earn a livelihood, property rights, privacy, bodily integrity
Freaking out…..surely this has to be enough to pass…am I leaving out anything important??

I'm doing the exact same plus Liberty

JCormac

EU

What are people studying for the General principles question?

Seems like it mainly comes up as discuss the general principles & how they help protect individuals from Institutions and MS's or trace the development of the fundamental rights.

For the second one, do you just discuss the charter and development of the fundamental rights? As in, there's no point discussing any of the other general principles?

Banking on this for the second essay question after judicial review but it's such an immense area

nmurphy1441

What did people make of Criminal?

rightytighty

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

What did people make of Criminal?

I thought it was ok, I got 5 handy enough. For Liam the drug user in Q5, was it an insanity defence? Intoxication not open as his intention not disputed?

nmurphy1441

rightytighty wrote: »

I thought it was ok, I got 5 handy enough. For Liam the drug user in Q5, was it an insanity defence? Intoxication not open as his intention not disputed?

Thought it was ok too! Was hoping for a provocation or self defence problem question. Wasn’t expecting the 2 sets of advising on 4 different situations. Didn’t attempt question 5 but seemed like an insanity defence based on the mcnaughten rules case I’d imagine!

Molly347

Property (Succession)

Does anyone know the outcome of In bonis McCullagh where he wrote cancelled on the back of the will? I cant seem to find the result online - was the will revoked?

EmmaO94

For Criminal, what offences did people put down for Q2, the Adam & Emma problem q?

rightytighty

EmmaO94 wrote: »

For Criminal, what offences did people put down for Q2, the Adam & Emma problem q?

Potential Criminal Damage for forcible entry, assault for his hand on her mouth, burglary for trespass w/ intent to commit crime, s5 NFOATP Threat to kill, assault causing harm for striking her face, rape, aggravated sexual assault for threat with knife to remove clothes, rape under s3 for oral rape, false imprisonment s15 NFOATP

the baby bull elephant

rightytighty wrote: »

I thought it was ok, I got 5 handy enough. For Liam the drug user in Q5, was it an insanity defence? Intoxication not open as his intention not disputed?

Is it not intoxication is available due to murder being a crime of specific intent?

EmmaO94

rightytighty wrote: »

Potential Criminal Damage for forcible entry, assault for his hand on her mouth, burglary for trespass w/ intent to commit crime, s5 NFOATP Threat to kill, assault causing harm for striking her face, rape, aggravated sexual assault for threat with knife to remove clothes, rape under s3 for oral rape, false imprisonment s15 NFOATP

Phew okay I put nearly all of those down too! A lot going on in that q

lawstudentirl

Criminal paper didn’t go well for me at all... but time to focus on the rest I suppose!

nmurphy1441

EmmaO94 wrote: »

Phew okay I put nearly all of those down too! A lot going on in that q

I put down aggravated burglary if it can be proved he entered with the knife on him!

Lovestolisten

the baby bull elephant wrote: »

Is it not intoxication is available due to murder being a crime of specific intent?

Majewski I think is the big one in specific and basic intent, using intoxication as a possible defence

EmmaO94

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

I put down aggravated burglary if it can be proved he entered with the knife on him!

Ah that's smart, didn't think of that!!

Also what did people discuss for Part A of Q1, ie Kevin shooting and killing Elaine 'by accident'?

I'm just so paranoid I've barked up the wrong tree with some q's :eek:

Lovestolisten

Lovestolisten wrote: »

Majewski I think is the big one in specific and basic intent, using intoxication as a possible defence

If he’s charged with Murder under section 4 he can run with Intoxication, Manslaughter no intoxication because recklessness is an element of the crime.. unless his intoxication was not self induced (spiked etc..)

rightytighty

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

I put down aggravated burglary if it can be proved he entered with the knife on him!

Ah yes same, not looking good for Adam!

What did people have for question 4? I didn’t even have time for the fourth part as I had to start my fifth question.. I had the below:

1) unlawful use of computer, deception, theft, false accounting

2) possession of a syringe, assault with a syringe, would-be robbery but arrival of gardai made it attempt

3) criminal damage, public disorder, threatening behaviour, burglary (??? Trespasser once asked to leave and committed criminal damage thereafter)

Lovestolisten

EmmaO94 wrote: »

Ah that's smart, didn't think of that!!

Also what did people discuss for Part A of Q1, ie Kevin shooting and killing Elaine 'by accident'?

I'm just so paranoid I've barked up the wrong tree with some q's :eek:

Criminal negligent/ Criminal and Dangerous act manslaughter

ihatethesea

I had three good answers two bad for criminal- any chance of passing ??

user115

What is a basic layout on an answer on judicial review? what topics would you cover?

Breacnua

ihatethesea wrote: »

I had three good answers two bad for criminal- any chance of passing ??

yes, keep the faith

rightytighty

the baby bull elephant wrote: »

Is it not intoxication is available due to murder being a crime of specific intent?

Yeah it is but I said that because he didn’t dispute intending to kill it wouldn’t be viable, not even sure that’s correct it’s just what I said

I think (hope) once you make a point with relevant law and back it up you should be fine??? Hopefully!!

iamanengine

user115 wrote: »

What is a basic layout on an answer on judicial review? what topics would you cover?

Judicial review is Locus Standi, Effects of Unconstitutionality, Justiciability, Mootness etc I think, I've only covered the first two

Supermax1988

ihatethesea wrote: »

I had three good answers two bad for criminal- any chance of passing ??

Yeah. He is a very fair marker. I had pretty much the same when I sat Criminal. Once you get five answers down you always have a chance.

Bex20

Any one have any predictions for Company?

Starting to panic I don't have enough done.

lawgrad15

the baby bull elephant wrote: »

Is it not intoxication is available due to murder being a crime of specific intent?

I said intoxication - yes murder being specific intent.
It was similar in ways to Celyn Eadon case which was decided before Christmas.

user115

iamanengine wrote: »

Judicial review is Locus Standi, Effects of Unconstitutionality, Justiciability, Mootness etc I think, I've only covered the first two

I don't have time to do it so just gonna cover first 3, justiciavility you will have covered under SOP so you should be grand for it, really really hoping it will be a nice exam.

nmurphy1441

rightytighty wrote: »

Ah yes same, not looking good for Adam!

What did people have for question 4? I didn’t even have time for the fourth part as I had to start my fifth question.. I had the below:

1) unlawful use of computer, deception, theft, false accounting

2) possession of a syringe, assault with a syringe, would-be robbery but arrival of gardai made it attempt

3) criminal damage, public disorder, threatening behaviour, burglary (??? Trespasser once asked to leave and committed criminal damage thereafter)

1) Same but didn’t say false accounting

2) Same but said it was a robbery as he got possession of the wallet

3) Just put criminal damage for this one

4) incitement to commit rape

user115

Bex20 wrote: »

Any one have any predictions for Company?

Starting to panic I don't have enough done.

Company from what I remember always:

2 q on directors duties (def 1 for sure anyway)

1 q on charges

1 q on limited liability or some of that intro stuff

1 q on shareholders in some form either their protection or share transfer, protection up last time so maybe share transfer but 100% on that, see yourself, company is actually fine once you know core topics above

I could be wrong but I don't think examinership or receivership was up last time so know both very well id say highly like may be up but def check last sitting paper, that's just all from memory

Supermax1988

ihatethesea wrote: »

I had three good answers two bad for criminal- any chance of passing ??

Yeah. He is a very fair marker. I had pretty much the same when I sat Criminal. Once you get five answers down you always have a chance.

TCPIP

Anyone sit the exam in Neptune? How was it handled?

bobbyness

Hi All. First time using this forum. If anyone has up to date exam grids for fe1s (Preferably need contract and tort for upcoming exam)

Anyone who has any and would be willing to share with me, send me a PM - It'd be much appreciated! (And if you have contract or tort this time round I'll get you a pre-exam coffee!)

Thanks for any help!

rightytighty

TCPIP wrote: »

Anyone sit the exam in Neptune? How was it handled?

Much more chill than red cow, doesn’t feel like half as big a deal and there’s nowhere near as much panic etc

eLawGirl

TCPIP wrote: »

Anyone sit the exam in Neptune? How was it handled?

Very well, lovely invigilators, only issue was the hall was freezing

nmurphy1441

Anyone on here attempt Q8 on the criminal paper?

Hamerzan Sickles

EmmaO94 wrote: »

Ah that's smart, didn't think of that!!

Also what did people discuss for Part A of Q1, ie Kevin shooting and killing Elaine 'by accident'?

I'm just so paranoid I've barked up the wrong tree with some q's :eek:

I said novus actus interveniens, with Elaine as the victim possibly breaking the chain of causation for the criminal act [attempted suicide]. But it was a toss up between that and unlawful and dangerous manslaughter, I just didn't think any of the cases were of the same applicability there.