FE1 Exam Thread (Read 1st post!) No trading

bluerthanu

Hamerzan Sickles wrote: »

CONSTITUTIONAL: Can someone explain to me what the Supreme Court held in Zalewski in late 2020 in relation to the exercise of limited judicial power? Just realised I don't have it in my notes. Thanks!

Unless this is in relation to a case of the same name not on courts.ie, the Supreme Court decision of that name (Zalewski v Adjudication Officer (WRC) [2019] IESC 17) was handed down two years ago. The SC judgment only determined that the appellant had locus standi to challenge the Work Place Relations Act and Unfair Dismissals Act. Then, last year, the High Court ([2020] IEHC 178) held that, although the powers exercised by adjudication officers and the Labour Court—for resolving employment disputes under the WRC—resemble many of the characteristics of the administration of justice under Article 34, it lacks the crucial element of the decision maker being able to enforce its decisions (characteristic four of Bord na gCon). Thus, the claim failed on that limb. That’s as much as I know!

Lawlawblahblah

Anyone who has sat the November 2020 exams were you asked to show your room before the exam started? Did you have to show a copy of your unmarked constitution/ legislation? Thanks!!!

Legalapples

bluerthanu wrote: »

Unless this is in relation to a case of the same name not on courts.ie, the Supreme Court decision of that name (Zalewski v Adjudication Officer (WRC) [2019] IESC 17) was handed down two years ago. The SC judgment only determined that the appellant had locus standi to challenge the Work Place Relations Act and Unfair Dismissals Act. Then, last year, the High Court ([2020] IEHC 178) held that, although the powers exercised by adjudication officers and the Labour Court—for resolving employment disputes under the WRC—resemble many of the characteristics of the administration of justice under Article 34, it lacks the crucial element of the decision maker being able to enforce its decisions (characteristic four of Bord na gCon). Thus, the claim failed on that limb. That’s as much as I know!

From my understanding it's been heard by the SC but they have yet to make a decision on it

Lawlawblahblah

Anyone who has sat the November 2020 exams were you asked to show your room before the exam started? Did you have to show a copy of your unmarked constitution/ legislation? Thanks!!!

Mc96

[HTML][/HTML]

Lawlawblahblah wrote: »

Anyone who has sat the November 2020 exams were you asked to show your room before the exam started? Did you have to show a copy of your unmarked constitution/ legislation? Thanks!!!

Nope, we weren't asked to show the room or legislation. I just held up my legislation at the start in front of the camera but we didn't need to.

flepetch

Lawlawblahblah wrote: »

Anyone who has sat the November 2020 exams were you asked to show your room before the exam started? Did you have to show a copy of your unmarked constitution/ legislation? Thanks!!!

we weren't asked to or even prompted to do so. I just held up the legislation at the start of my exam and also throughout (whenever i remembered to) to show what i was looking at!
there's nobody speaking to you so its not invigilated but they use a software that can detect suspicious behaviour, whatever that might be i.e. going to the bathroom often, staring in the same direction repeatedly during the exam. i had been very paranoid about staring out my window thinking that the system might have flagged it, and i was never told it did because nothing of the sort was communicated to me. then again i did fail that paper so who knows lol

Lawlawblahblah

flepetch wrote: »

we weren't asked to or even prompted to do so. I just held up the legislation at the start of my exam and also throughout (whenever i remembered to) to show what i was looking at!
there's nobody speaking to you so its not invigilated but they use a software that can detect suspicious behaviour, whatever that might be i.e. going to the bathroom often, staring in the same direction repeatedly during the exam. i had been very paranoid about staring out my window thinking that the system might have flagged it, and i was never told it did because nothing of the sort was communicated to me. then again i did fail that paper so who knows lol

Hard to know what they pick up on!! And easy to be paranoid lol I wonder do they not tell people the reason they’ve failed is because they think they’re cheating?

DUMSURFER

Lawlawblahblah wrote: »

Anyone who has sat the November 2020 exams were you asked to show your room before the exam started? Did you have to show a copy of your unmarked constitution/ legislation? Thanks!!!

You don't even have to show them what colour shirt you're wearing. Don't bother holding up your legislation or showing your room, you're only wasting time. As long as you're not pulling your notes or a textbook you have nothing to even think about. The camera is purely to keep people honest and to catch blatant cheaters.

Hamerzan Sickles

bluerthanu wrote: »

Unless this is in relation to a case of the same name not on courts.ie, the Supreme Court decision of that name (Zalewski v Adjudication Officer (WRC) [2019] IESC 17) was handed down two years ago. The SC judgment only determined that the appellant had locus standi to challenge the Work Place Relations Act and Unfair Dismissals Act. Then, last year, the High Court ([2020] IEHC 178) held that, although the powers exercised by adjudication officers and the Labour Court—for resolving employment disputes under the WRC—resemble many of the characteristics of the administration of justice under Article 34, it lacks the crucial element of the decision maker being able to enforce its decisions (characteristic four of Bord na gCon). Thus, the claim failed on that limb. That’s as much as I know!

Legalapples wrote: »

From my understanding it's been heard by the SC but they have yet to make a decision on it

My sincere thanks to both of you. Legalapples, that would make sense as to why I haven't any notes on the SC decision -- if they've only heard arguments but haven't delivered any judgments yet.

Lallers96

Lawlawblahblah wrote: »

Hard to know what they pick up on!! And easy to be paranoid lol I wonder do they not tell people the reason they’ve failed is because they think they’re cheating?

You'd be notified if you were caught cheating because they told us beforehand that there is a chance to appeal. However in saying that I have zero confidence in that software, and I researched it heavily.

LawNerd2020

Hi all, just wondering does anybody have the handout that was given out at Eoin Carolan's lecture last year with the leading cases from 2019? I'm going on Monday go get the leading cases for 2020.

nicolesd

can anyone explain to me the test JC set out re unconstitutionally obtained evidence please?

BBall2015

I am repeating equity and need to pass it to start my TC on time, here are the chapters I'm studying:

Mareva Inj
QT Inj
Proprietary Estoppel
Unilateral Mistake
Trusteeship
Undue Influence
Doctrine of Satisfaction
DMC
Strong v Bird
3 Certainties
Charitable Trusts
Resulting Trusts - Joint Deposits & Surplus Funds only

Am I missing any major topics or do you with this is sufficient to pass?

I looked through past exam papers, and even with all these chapters, I can still only just pick 5 questions to answer on a paper and with this new Examiner like last time, I'm terrified!!!

ruby1998

nicolesd wrote: »

can anyone explain to me the test JC set out re unconstitutionally obtained evidence please?

JC overruled the Kenny absolute exclusionary rule so the new position is that unconstitutionally obtained evidence can be admitted if it was gathered in circumstances where breach of rights was due to inadvertence and there was no deliberate conscious breach.

onus is on prosecution to establish admissibility so they will either have to show the evidence was not obtained unconstitutionally, or that it was but the court should nonetheless admit it.

where evidence is obtained by deliberate conscious breach, it should be excluded except in exceptional circumstances. deliberate conscious breach = knowledge of unconstitutionality and involves assessment of the state of mind of the person gathering the evidence and any other official investigators involved.

where evidence is obtained unconstitutionally but not by deliberate conscious breach, this raises a presumption of inadmissibility. This can be rebutted by the prosecution establishing breach of rights was due to inadvertence.

where evidence is obtained in circumstances whereby it could never be regarded as constitutionally obtained, it should never be admissible.

Apologies if that's a bit long-winded, and hopefully it's accurate - do correct me if I'm wrong!

Creg12

tommyq94 wrote: »

General Principles is a bit easier/shorter!

I really would do both if I were you, as they are both likely to come up, and they are always asked in the same essay format.

I can send you my notes on them both if you want.

what do you think is best to cover?

I have covered

institutions
general principals and bit on fundamental rights
direct effect & MS liability
Judicial Review
FMOG

I don't think I have enough ? I will try cover another topic, any advice really appreciated, would it take long to do workers?

catonafence

Creg12 wrote: »

what do you think is best to cover?

I have covered

institutions
general principals and bit on fundamental rights
direct effect & MS liability
Judicial Review
FMOG

I don't think I have enough ? I will try cover another topic, any advice really appreciated, would it take long to do workers?

My list is identical to yours but I have supremacy done as well. On advise I got here a few days ago I am going to try to get FMOW and citizenship done as well.

lsheehaneire

Better Examinations

Under upcoming exams is anybody's exam coming up ? I am sitting constitution Wednesday.

Lawlawblahblah

lsheehaneire wrote: »

Better Examinations

Under upcoming exams is anybody's exam coming up ? I am sitting constitution Wednesday.

Same here. I emailed the law society about it and they said it would be added closer to the time...

lsheehaneire

Thanks...5 more sleeps is close enough !

Lealaw

lsheehaneire wrote: »

Thanks...5 more sleeps is close enough !

Last sitting they only appeared the night before, so still plenty of sleepless nights and unnecessary stress to go. Best of luck!

Fe1user5555

Hey guys ! Is anyone leaving out any part of due course of law or are people doing all of it? Don’t think I’ll have time to do all so if anyone had any pointers that would be great

lsheehaneire

Fe1user5555 wrote: »

Hey guys ! Is anyone leaving out any part of due course of law or are people doing all of it? Don’t think I’ll have time to do all so if anyone had any pointers that would be great

Leaving it also ..it is not a regular question.

FE1Nov20

Fe1user5555 wrote: »

Hey guys ! Is anyone leaving out any part of due course of law or are people doing all of it? Don’t think I’ll have time to do all so if anyone had any pointers that would be great

The only parts I plan on skimming are right to silence and unconstitutionally obtained evidence

tommyq94

Creg12 wrote: »

what do you think is best to cover?

I have covered

institutions
general principals and bit on fundamental rights
direct effect & MS liability
Judicial Review
FMOG

I don't think I have enough ? I will try cover another topic, any advice really appreciated, would it take long to do workers?

Definitely add Citizenship + Free Movement of Workers in there too, they come up regularly and are often mixed in the same question.

I'm covering what you have there along with Workers, Citizenship, and a small bit on both Equal Pay/Equal Treatment, and Services - my lecturer seemed to think it would come up in the form of an Access to Medical Treatment question, so I focused my notes towards that!

examsfe12021

constitutional

hey does anybody have a sample answer for AG ? Can swap other notes if needed!

Fe1user5555

FE1Nov20 wrote: »

The only parts I plan on skimming are right to silence and unconstitutionally obtained evidence

And you’re not looking at the rest? Might follow same approach!

Hamerzan Sickles

Re Constitutional: how does anyone pass this exam without going completely insane or sinking into the depths of despair?

FE1Nov20

Fe1user5555 wrote: »

And you’re not looking at the rest? Might follow same approach!

Yeah really don't think I'll have time to cover undue delay etc!

DavidX90

Hamerzan Sickles wrote: »

Re Constitutional: how does anyone pass this exam without going completely insane or sinking into the depths of despair?

I just cannot understand how they expect people to MEMORISE this quantity of BS. I have a busy job and literally don't have time for this.

Al1501

DavidX90 wrote: »

I just cannot understand how they expect people to MEMORISE this quantity of BS. I have a busy job and literally don't have time for this.

It purely is the pointlessness of memorisation that turns me off completely. I actually find a lot of the concepts really interesting, but the sheer amount that has to be learnt off is incomprehensible.