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

ryansmith171

Hi lawstudentirl
I seen you post on a law forum and i am struggling with a past property law exam question if you could help me it would be great!

bobbyness

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

Anyone on here attempt Q8 on the criminal paper?

Scared me too much to even touch it! I was woefully under prepared on the later Thefts and frauds acts Looking at it now I'd have said

a) Handling and Possession of stolen property - Theft and Fraud Act
b) Forgery and using false instrument - Theft and fraud
c) Contempt of court
d) Harassment - NFOAP (Maybe incitement against her too)

lawstudentirl

ryansmith171 wrote: »

Hi lawstudentirl
I seen you post on a law forum and i am struggling with a past property law exam question if you could help me it would be great!

Yeah no worries, I’ll do my best. I sat property last time so it’s not exactly fresh in my mind. What’s the question?

nmurphy1441

bobbyness wrote: »

Scared me too much to even touch it! I was woefully under prepared on the later Thefts and frauds acts Looking at it now I'd have said

a) Handling and Possession of stolen property - Theft and Fraud Act
b) Forgery and using false instrument - Theft and fraud
c) Contempt of court
d) Harassment - NFOAP (Maybe incitement against her too)

I didn’t even think of handling and possession of stolen propert!!!!!! Disaster!!! I put down guilty as an accessory to theft!!! Really annoyed with that!

Had that for part (b) along with False accounting

Had contempt in the face of the court too along with scandalising the court

Put down harassment and assault for (d) along with a public order offence

nmurphy1441

Hamerzan Sickles wrote: »

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.

Could it be an example of transfered mens rea too?

bobbyness

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

I didn’t even think of handling and possession of stolen propert!!!!!! Disaster!!! I put down guilty as an accessory to theft!!! Really annoyed with that!

Had that for part (b) along with False accounting

Had contempt in the face of the court too along with scandalising the court

Put down harassment and assault for (d) along with a public order offence

Much easier afterwards with statutes in hand

Accessory to theft is definitely a consideration for the a) Evidence claims to have not been part of it - Would still have to prove no part in it.

and assault is a good one to include in d) - R v Ireland - Silent phone calls can amount to an assault, with psychiatric injury being the harm.

You've got a well rounded answer there in my opinion!

bobbyness

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

I didn’t even think of handling and possession of stolen propert!!!!!! Disaster!!! I put down guilty as an accessory to theft!!! Really annoyed with that!

Had that for part (b) along with False accounting

Had contempt in the face of the court too along with scandalising the court

Put down harassment and assault for (d) along with a public order offence

Re d) Only reason I'm thinking incitement potentially is - Applin v Race Relations Board - Where they distributed flyers and letters/emails trying to stop a family adopting a black child.

Hamerzan Sickles

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

Could it be an example of transfered mens rea too?

I was thinking that too but it would be quite technical because the aim would have to be the same i.e. murdering himself and murdering her. But I think the law considers suicide and murder distinct so it wouldn't amount to transferred mens rea. You can always argue that it isn't though... but if it wasn't you wouldn't really be advising him of that.

CMUL

eLawGirl wrote: »

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

Really, crap I hate being cold was it unbearable? I was thinking there would be very little heat in a big hall like that

Hamerzan Sickles

Okay, I'm only getting a chance to look at Constitutional now. What topics should I prioritise? Aiming for quality over quantity here.

Molly347

the clock in neptune is very hard to see from the back as well

nmurphy1441

bobbyness wrote: »

Re d) Only reason I'm thinking incitement potentially is - Applin v Race Relations Board - Where they distributed flyers and letters/emails trying to stop a family adopting a black child.

The distribution of insulting flyers I put down as S7 Public Order Act 1994

bobbyness

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

The distribution of insulting flyers I put down as S7 Public Order Act 1994

Definitely. We only need 50% to pass anyway so here's hoping!

iamanengine

Hamerzan Sickles wrote: »

Okay, I'm only getting a chance to look at Constitutional now. What topics should I prioritise? Aiming for quality over quantity here.

Oireachtas - Internal rules, Locus Standi, Family, Fair Procedures, Liberty, President/AG, Interpretation

These seem to be the ones most are predicting/banking on

EmmaO94

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

Could it be an example of transfered mens rea too?

I went down the transferred malice route myself... in the moment it was the only thing that jumped out at me! If I'm way off, at least that part was only half the question - felt I had a v solid answer for bail

OMGWACA

Hi all,

Looking for a sample answer for Company October 2017, Qs 3;

"The introduction of the Summary Approval Procedure contained in Chapter 7 of Part 4 of the CA2014 has resulted in a unified approach provided that certain safeguards are met. The key safeguards are that the members of the company must resolve in favour of the compnay engaging in the activity and that the directors must make a declaration of solvency.

You are required to discuss this statement having particular regard to the rationale of the two safeguards referred to in the statement. In your answer you must cite all relevant case and statute law."

I'd really appreciate any steer on this!

Hamerzan Sickles

EmmaO94 wrote: »

I went down the transferred malice route myself... in the moment it was the only thing that jumped out at me! If I'm way off, at least that part was only half the question - felt I had a v solid answer for bail

Yeah, I was annoyed with myself because I wasn't entirely sure which topic of law part (a) was and my presumption of innocence answer was perfect. Was also annoyed by the Special Criminal Court coming up with the Circuit Court -- I had learned off his exam report on the SCC only. An exam of what could have beens.

iamanengine wrote: »

Oireachtas - Internal rules, Locus Standi, Family, Fair Procedures, Liberty, President/AG, Interpretation

These seem to be the ones most are predicting/banking on

Brilliant, thanks iamanengine! Is that what you are banking on yourself?

nmurphy1441

Hamerzan Sickles wrote: »

Yeah, I was annoyed with myself because I wasn't entirely sure which topic of law part (a) was and my presumption of innocence answer was perfect. Was also annoyed by the Special Criminal Court coming up with the Circuit Court -- I had learned off his exam report on the SCC only. An exam of what could have beens.



Brilliant, thanks iamanengine! Is that what you are banking on yourself?

I was in the same boat.... I had the SCC down to a tee but nothing for the first part!!!

iamanengine

Hamerzan Sickles wrote: »

Brilliant, thanks iamanengine! Is that what you are banking on yourself?

No worries! Yeah pretty much, they are the ones I hope to know well.

Other ones I am covering but maybe won't know as well are property/livelihood, equality, referendums, freedom of expression, international relations, non-delegation

Hamerzan Sickles

iamanengine wrote: »

No worries! Yeah pretty much, they are the ones I hope to know well.

Other ones I am covering but maybe won't know as well are property/livelihood, equality, referendums, freedom of expression, international relations, non-delegation

Alright, I'm going to try my best to follow your lead before I inevitably fall asleep (was up very late last night cramming for criminal) so thanks again!

bobbyness

What are people banking on coming up for contract law?

nmurphy1441

bobbyness wrote: »

What are people banking on coming up for contract law?

I was hoping someone was going to ask that!!!! It’s my next one too so hoping to get a good bit covered!

I think mistake is due a run. Consumer protection is a definite, maybe 2 questions. Exclusion clauses, penalty clauses, misrep....

iamanengine

Hamerzan Sickles wrote: »

Alright, I'm going to try my best to follow your lead before I inevitably fall asleep (was up very late last night cramming for criminal) so thanks again!

Best of luck, hope for our sake I'm right!

ahona

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

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

I didnt write Burglary or Agg Burglary

this was supposed to be my good answer


BRB while I go and cry in one corner

https://media2.giphy.com/media/j0qSbeNFuzjhXKFVSP/giphy.gif?cid=790b76116e639fde0b2aea8fcf2e4d3426e0c8afd51d265d&rid=giphy.gif

CiaranS93

iamanengine wrote: »

Oireachtas - Internal rules, Locus Standi, Family, Fair Procedures, Liberty, President/AG, Interpretation

These seem to be the ones most are predicting/banking on

Nearly guaranteed at least one Q on SOP as comes up in some form 95% of the time. Although if time is tight maybe don't bother as it is pretty big

nmurphy1441

ahona wrote: »

I didnt write Burglary or Agg Burglary

this was supposed to be my good answer


BRB while I go and cry in one corner

https://media2.giphy.com/media/j0qSbeNFuzjhXKFVSP/giphy.gif?cid=790b76116e639fde0b2aea8fcf2e4d3426e0c8afd51d265d&rid=giphy.gif

That’s only a small part of the question so I wouldn’t worry about it! There was a lot going on in it!

eLawGirl

CMUL wrote: »

Really, crap I hate being cold was it unbearable? I was thinking there would be very little heat in a big hall like that

I kept my scarf and coat on so definitely wear something warm and comfortable if you feel the cold!

mydogwentroof

EQUITY

Anybody banking on certain topics? Can be for literally no reason, I'm all ears.

nmurphy1441

mydogwentroof wrote: »

EQUITY

Anybody banking on certain topics? Can be for literally no reason, I'm all ears.

Injunctions Definite, mareva in particular due a run
Charitable trusts and cy pres in some form definitely
Trustees duties in some form definitely
3 certainties due a run, not on last 2/3 sittings
DMC possibly as not on last sitting
Undue influence as not on last sitting
Misrep and specific performance as not on last sitting

Just going by grid and last few sitting

user115

Constitutional

There was a question I read in past exams few days ago where it mentioned that this would be plaintiff was earning very little and a particular law required he have a certain amount of money for costs, what does that relate to? I imagine it's access to justice but I haven't covered it, what part of constit is it and what would I say briefly on it?

ryansmith171

Thank you ! I DM you there.

user115

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

Injunctions Definite, mareva in particular due a run
Charitable trusts and cy pres in some form definitely
Trustees duties in some form definitely
3 certainties due a run, not on last 2/3 sittings
DMC possibly as not on last sitting
Undue influence as not on last sitting
Misrep and specific performance as not on last sitting

Just going by grid and last few sitting

Would agree with these but I think there were a good few decisions relating to interloc injunction last year so I'd say that could come up as well. But ya mareva hasn't been up in while so equally could be that

PerryMason2020

Has anyone experience with swapping stuff with poster illy.m? Sent them on stuff a week ago and they had promised to send me stuff back and I'm still waiting. Incredibly annoying when you go out of your way for people and they don't bother their ass to do what was agreed!

mydogwentroof

PerryMason2020 wrote: »

Has anyone experience with swapping stuff with poster illy.m? Sent them on stuff a week ago and they had promised to send me stuff back and I'm still waiting. Incredibly annoying when you go out of your way for people and they don't bother their ass to do what was agreed!

She is an incredulous bean counter

Supermax1988

user115 wrote: »

Constitutional

There was a question I read in past exams few days ago where it mentioned that this would be plaintiff was earning very little and a particular law required he have a certain amount of money for costs, what does that relate to? I imagine it's access to justice but I haven't covered it, what part of constit is it and what would I say briefly on it?

Access to the courts is 40.3.2 There’s a distinction between right to access to courts vs. right to litigate (the latter can be interfered with by limitation periods)
I would say you could bring in statute of limitation cases. Touhy v Courtney & White v Dublin City Council. And then maybe courts have recognised a limited obligation on the State to provide civil legal aid, particularly in the case of vulnerable people (Stevenson v Landy)

iamanengine

Constitutional is slowly destroying my will to live...

user115

Supermax1988 wrote: »

Access to the courts is 40.3.2 There’s a distinction between right to access to courts vs. right to litigate (the latter can be interfered with by limitation periods)
I would say you could bring in statute of limitation cases. Touhy v Courtney & White v Dublin City Council. And then maybe courts have recognised a limited obligation on the State to provide civil legal aid, particularly in the case of vulnerable people (Stevenson v Landy)

Thanks a million

lawstudentirl

ryansmith171 wrote: »

Thank you ! I DM you there.

I didn’t get any DM!

bobbyness

lawstudentirl wrote: »

Yeah no worries, I’ll do my best. I sat property last time so it’s not exactly fresh in my mind. What’s the question?

Cheeky as you're helping so many people. Any chance you have a grid on contract and tort law?

LawStudent96

EU

Would any kind soul have a sample answer on distinguishing Article 30 and 110 in PQ they might share? Have plenty to return.

jewels652

iamanengine wrote: »

Constitutional is slowly destroying my will to live...

Is sucking up my soul........

TCPIP

iamanengine wrote: »

Constitutional is slowly destroying my will to live...

jewels652 wrote: »

Is sucking up my soul........

I simultaneously feel like I could be CJ and that I know nothing about anything so tomorrow, even if the paper has all the topics I studied, could be a coin flip.

iamanengine

TCPIP wrote: »

I simultaneously feel like I could be CJ and that I know nothing about anything so tomorrow, even if the paper has all the topics I studied, could be a coin flip.

Yep, brain is so fried I have no idea if I know anything or not...just working off the assumption that I presumably have retained at least some information!

leavingcert17

iamanengine wrote: »

Yep, brain is so fried I have no idea if I know anything or not...just working off the assumption that I presumably have retained at least some information!

I’m the same. No time to test my knowledge now just cram

lawstudentirl

bobbyness wrote: »

Cheeky as you're helping so many people. Any chance you have a grid on contract and tort law?

Sorry but I actually don’t! Best of luck tracking one down

bobbyness

lawstudentirl wrote: »

Sorry but I actually don’t! Best of luck tracking one down

Thanks for letting me know! Best of luck with any exams you may have!

lawstudentirl

bobbyness wrote: »

Thanks for letting me know! Best of luck with any exams you may have!

Thanks, you too!

godfather2

So glad am not the only person feeling overwhelmed with Constitutional. I've read so much no idea if I am retaining any of it. At least by 12:30 tomorrow will be out of our misery.

Then the hell that is equity begins lol.

LJones18

Do people think that Kerins / O'Brien decision is possible for constitution tomorrow?

Finding it a bit hard to understand.

godfather2

LJones18 wrote: »

Do people think that Kerins / O'Brien decision is possible for constitution tomorrow?

Finding it a bit hard to understand.

Really hoping it is going to be a case note. No typed notes to send you, what part are you struggling with? Perhaps people here can help. It centres around utterances of members non justicable. O brieb, was utterances in the dail no relief.
Kerins immunity only applied when committee doing business of the house. PAC had obligations to remain within remit conferred on it. It didn't