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

fe1prep2021

Could anyone tell me if stealthing has become an offence in Ireland yet and if so under what act? In the November 2020 criminal paper it was part of a problem question.

Mc96

Company

Does anyone have a sample answer on s238 and 239 (like question 2 in the March 2019 paper) they would be willing to share? Thanks in advance!

luluFE1

fe12020grad wrote: »

Sorry if I'm a bit late to this conversation but would you all recommend leaving out distribution of assets on winding up and cover just winding up/liquidation on its own? I know distribution has come up in the last two sitting as just distribution but I want to make sure its not too risky to cover one without the other.

I was wondering the same! Is anyone doing company leaving out distribution of assets? It seems unlikely to come up on its own for a third sitting when winding up on its own and examinership are due a run - can it be cut or do you need it for a winding up question? TIA!!

awsah

fe1prep2021 wrote: »

Could anyone tell me if stealthing has become an offence in Ireland yet and if so under what act? In the November 2020 criminal paper it was part of a problem question.

i dont think it is actually a crime but the facts i beleive came from DPP v Sherlock (which i did not know for the exam) In the exam I actually said that she consted to the act and that fraud was not at play as per liniker (prostitute) and another case about HIV. my conclusion wsa to advise the dpp there was no case to prosecute. i got 13 marks in the overall question but whose to say how many I got for that part

nmurphy1441

Mc96 wrote: »

Company

Does anyone have a sample answer on s238 and 239 (like question 2 in the March 2019 paper) they would be willing to share? Thanks in advance!

PM you’re email, I have one!

bluerthanu

fe1prep2021 wrote: »

Could anyone tell me if stealthing has become an offence in Ireland yet and if so under what act? In the November 2020 criminal paper it was part of a problem question.

I don’t think it needs to be a specific offence? It’s a vitiation of consent, which is either rape or sexual assault coming under s 9(2)(e) of 1990 Act (as amended by 2017 Act) afaik.

flepetch

Tort
re employer's liability, the lecture videos i used were from 2016 and the lecturer said that stress-related injuries (hatton v sutherland, barber v dunnes stores etc) are not examined. can anyone confirm this is still the case?

nmurphy1441

luluFE1 wrote: »

I was wondering the same! Is anyone doing company leaving out distribution of assets? It seems unlikely to come up on its own for a third sitting when winding up on its own and examinership are due a run - can it be cut or do you need it for a winding up question? TIA!!

I’m covering it in the way it came up in March 19 Q3... but I’m thinking the same as you! Couldn’t see it coming up as a stand alone!

Zlatorog

bluerthanu wrote: »

I don’t think it needs to be a specific offence? It’s a vitiation of consent, which is either rape or sexual assault coming under s 9(2)(e) of 1990 Act (as amended by 2017 Act) afaik.

Not doing criminal this time round but I think that it wouldn't come under rape as there is consent to the act itself. Think the cases are Hegarty v Shine and R v Dica (GBH charge for the defendant who was HIV positive) regarding state of veneral health not invalidating consent. These are distinguished from cases such as R v Flattery (intercourse as a surgical procedure) where the act of sexual intercourse itself is misrepresented. So possibly assault causing harm/causing serious harm under the 1997 act.

bluerthanu

Zlatorog wrote: »

Not doing criminal this time round but I think that it wouldn't come under rape as there is consent to the act itself. Think the cases are Hegarty v Shine and R v Dica (GBH charge for the defendant who was HIV positive) regarding state of veneral health not invalidating consent. These are distinguished from cases such as R v Flattery (intercourse as a surgical procedure) where the act of sexual intercourse itself is misrepresented. So possibly assault causing harm/causing serious harm under the 1997 act.

Not to get to a debate on here haha but doesn’t the 2017 now change that though? Section 9(2)(e) states: ‘he or she is mistaken as to the nature and purpose of the act’. I have in my notes that this is effectively codifying the principle from DPP v. Keogh where an agreement for sex with a prostitute with a condom on was breached as he forced her to remove it, and he was found guilty of rape under s 2. Albeit there were other aggravating circumstances here in terms of violence, it seems to me that the 2017 Act has effectively indirectly criminalised stealthing if either party was of the belief that a condom would or would not be used for sex and consented on that basis.

FE1Eire

Does anyone know if you have decided not to sit an exam you paid for if there is anyway in getting your money back from the Law Soc? Can't seem to get any information on it! Thanks!

awsah

bluerthanu wrote: »

Not to get to a debate on here haha but doesn’t the 2017 now change that though? Section 9(2)(e) states: ‘he or she is mistaken as to the nature and purpose of the act’. I have in my notes that this is effectively codifying the principle from DPP v. Keogh where an agreement for sex with a prostitute with a condom on was breached as he forced her to remove it, and he was found guilty of rape under s 2. Albeit there were other aggravating circumstances here in terms of violence, it seems to me that the 2017 Act has effectively indirectly criminalised stealthing if either party was of the belief that a condom would or would not be used for sex and consented on that basis.

this makes sense as why they would put it in the exam, I had figured that must be the case but didn't have the case law so went the other way

awsah

not sure if this has been posted already, probably won't come up as a question but would be good to have in a question on the rights of the family and also to do with wardship that is pretty topical

https://www.pila.ie/resources/bulletin/2021/01/27/irish-supreme-court-dismisses-appeal-allowing-hospital-withhold-treatment-from-boy-with-brain-injury

FEONE

I am just covering fixed charged over book debts at the moment and I'm wondering if the case of Re Wogan is just a once off in holding that even though no specific bank account was created they still benefited from a fixed charge ?

Fe1user5555

anyone know which defences came up in criminal paper in november 2020? i know there was an essay on provocation but unsure as to the others

vkfe1

FEONE wrote: »

I am just covering fixed charged over book debts at the moment and I'm wondering if the case of Re Wogan is just a once off in holding that even though no specific bank account was created they still benefited from a fixed charge ?

In my notes, i have that (Re Wogan) segregation of bank accounts is NB and that even though the accounts were not maintained as per the restrictions in the debenture, the Court found this irrelevant and deemed it a fixed charge.

In Re Holidair then, Balyney J (SC) overturned the HC decision following Re Wogan. He went back to the Re Yorkshire Woolcombers test and identified that the charge had all 3 characteristics in same. So i would argue that the Irish stance is still that in Re Yorkshire - able to use bank accounts throughout the day to day course of its business = floating charge.

I hope that helps.

lawgrad49

ruby1998 wrote: »

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!

Just flicking through some past paper q's on Art 38.1 and Unconstitutionally Obtained evidence and on the March 2019 paper Q.6 there is a line in the Q. about the Gardai having a Common Law Power to enter a house because of concerns about the destruction of evidence, can anyone advise is that true? maybe someone sitting Criminal can shed some light?

Can't see why he threw it in there if you are meant to be advising on the constitutional issues in the question i.e. take him through the JC test as outlined by the poster above.

Costello95

Equity- what are people focusing on for Specific Performance? I’m running out of time and don’t think I’ll be able to cover it all

bluerthanu

lawgrad49 wrote: »

Just flicking through some past paper q's on Art 38.1 and Unconstitutionally Obtained evidence and on the March 2019 paper Q.6 there is a line in the Q. about the Gardai having a Common Law Power to enter a house because of concerns about the destruction of evidence, can anyone advise is that true? maybe someone sitting Criminal can shed some light?

Can't see why he threw it in there if you are meant to be advising on the constitutional issues in the question i.e. take him through the JC test as outlined by the poster above.

That’s invoking 40.5 and inviolability of the dwelling I’d say. DPP v Corrigan referred to that common law power (but not to enter the house itself), and DPP v McCann mentioned that such an exception would likely come within extraordinary excusing circumstances. That’s all I have.

FE1Eire

ullaw22 wrote: »

Having done Finding Disputes, Adverse Possession, Succession (in full), Licences & RoR, Co-Ownership and Family Property to the extent that they're learnt off a ready to go - can anyone recommend a last property topic to fit in? Ideally one that doesn't take a lot of understanding conceptually and would be tipped to come up.

Thanks in advance

Would recommend covering easements has come up 23/26 times!

lawgrad49

bluerthanu wrote: »

That’s invoking 40.5 and inviolability of the dwelling I’d say. DPP v Corrigan referred to that common law power (but not to enter the house itself), and DPP v McCann mentioned that such an exception would likely come within extraordinary excusing circumstances. That’s all I have.

Ahh, great cheers for that! Inviolability of the dwelling is a separate chapter in my manual so I keep forgetting to link it back with the 38.1 case law & sub-topics.

examsfe12021

constitutional

would it be an awful idea to leave out the rights of non-citizens in regard to family ??

Fe123

lawgrad49 wrote: »

Just flicking through some past paper q's on Art 38.1 and Unconstitutionally Obtained evidence and on the March 2019 paper Q.6 there is a line in the Q. about the Gardai having a Common Law Power to enter a house because of concerns about the destruction of evidence, can anyone advise is that true? maybe someone sitting Criminal can shed some light?

Can't see why he threw it in there if you are meant to be advising on the constitutional issues in the question i.e. take him through the JC test as outlined by the poster above.

I think there’s an exception “extra-ordinary excusing circumstances” and in Ag v O’Brien those circumstances would include imminent destruction of evidence, rescue a victim in peril & evidence found from a search pursuant to a lawful arrest. In freeman v Dpp a man ran into a house when he seen guards and they were allowed to enter without a warrant as it was feared that he would destroy evidence & there was no time to obtain warrant

Iconic10

having a bad day with constitutional - can’t wait for it to be over. this subject is a nightmare. How does anyone actually pass this exam with the sheer volume of stuff that needs to be memorized. it’s insanity

NewFe1

There always seems to be mass panic before Constitutional (completely understandable...the volume of content is mental) but most seem to pass in the end. Is he a really nice marker?

2020FE1

Iconic10 wrote: »

having a bad day with constitutional - can’t wait for it to be over. this subject is a nightmare. How does anyone actually pass this exam with the sheer volume of stuff that needs to be memorized. it’s insanity

I am the same. I feel like the more I read the less I know. I then second guess the topics that i’m covering, add another “just incase” . Then start the cycle over again :rolleyes:

Iso_123

Costello95 wrote: »

Equity- what are people focusing on for Specific Performance? I’m running out of time and don’t think I’ll be able to cover it all

It'll probably either be an essay on defences to SP in general/specifically contracts for service or maybe that problem Q where its mixed in with rectification. Focusing on defences either way

legallyginger

Iconic10 wrote: »

having a bad day with constitutional - can’t wait for it to be over. this subject is a nightmare. How does anyone actually pass this exam with the sheer volume of stuff that needs to be memorized. it’s insanity

I'm the same can say I only confidently know about four topics off by heart with caselaw. It's the volume of caselaw/rules that get me

awsah

examsfe12021 wrote: »

constitutional

would it be an awful idea to leave out the rights of non-citizens in regard to family ??

i think so as there was a recent SC decision (2020 OR 2021 - You will have to look it up!) in the Gorey case from 2014 or 2015 where the SC struck down an application of the Minster to enforce deportation orders of a Nigerian national married to an Irish citizen, they stated that the Minster did not consider the rights of the family strongly enough in its decision

there was also a case i think it was M v AG which was recent that was decided on the right of the child to travel but had to do with an unmarried father wanting to take the child out of the country (I believe to Nigeria to live with his family there) now I am not sure if the father in this case was an Irish citizen, the objection was that as the child was illegitimate they could not be removed from the state before they had obtained the age of 7. The court refused to grant relief based on family rights as it holds firm that the family is a married couple, but it granted relief based on the child's right to travel. I think this case could also be used in cases on non-citizen fathers of Irish citizen children trying to remove children from the state as the relief was granted on the child right not the fathers.

hope that helps!

Costello95

Iso_123 wrote: »

It'll probably either be an essay on defences to SP in general/specifically contracts for service or maybe that problem Q where its mixed in with rectification. Focusing on defences either way

Thanks so much!