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

jjjjjop

what normlly comes up from the rectification chapter in equity? im looking at it now for the first time </3

FE1_2020_

Iconic10 wrote: »

what year is this question?

Q5 November 2020

Iso_123

FEONE wrote: »

The Oireachtas has enacted the Protection of Waterways Act 2020, The Long Title of the Act states
that it is “An Act to address the problem of over fishing in Irish rivers and to preserve the natural
resources of the State in its fish stocks,

Section 2 of the Act allows the Minister for the Environment to make a river Cessation Order, Such
an Order “has the effect of prohibiting all fishing on the designated river for a minimum of 10 years
or such longer period as the Order may prescribe,

Section 11 provides that a breach of such an Order is a criminal offence.

Can anyone tell me please is this asking about the executive power or legislative power with regards to proportionality?

I did the November exam and did this question. I checked my script and got 12 on the question. I answered it on locus standi, natural resources, interference with right to earn livelihood, and proportionality!

Iconic10

if i start looking at questions for cons i’ll start freaking out - gonna just rote learn for the day as i honestly still can’t make out what he is looking for in the q

Iconic10

am i right in saying that almost every problem question deals with locus standi ?

Iconic10

Coopie wrote: »

Constitutional
Does anyone have a summary of the case
A/I/S v min for justice and equality 2020 IRC’s 70?

also couldn’t find any summary of this case - only the judgment and don’t have time to read through it. has anyone found a summary of it anywhere online ?

ihatethesea

Iconic10 wrote: »

am i right in saying that almost every problem question deals with locus standi ?

Yea I think you get marks for acknowledging it at the beginning of every PQ. Especially if your not advising a human being

examsfe12021

constitutional

for the recent ag case o'shea v legal aid board can someone explain it in summary? not sure how i would relate it into an ag essay q besides just stating what happened

lawgrad2020

For Equity, can someone clarify if Campus Oil principles need to be applied in a problem Q for QT injunctions? I understand a plaintiff must prove a substantial risk of danger before a court will grant a qt but my manual and notes are conflicting on whether Campus Oil needs to be applied as well. I would be so grateful if someone can clear this up for me!

Lallers96

How did everyone find Criminal?

I answered 5 but found it awful tight for time...I really hate those multiple part questions they end up being double the work of other Qs. My own fault for starting one and getting flummoxed by the 3rd part (man who fell during work and died due to defective machine).

awsah

Lallers96 wrote: »

How did everyone find Criminal?

I answered 5 but found it awful tight for time...I really hate those multiple part questions they end up being double the work of other Qs. My own fault for starting one and getting flummoxed by the 3rd part (man who fell during work and died due to defective machine).

well it must be nice to have the first one out of the way! what topics came up?

Dropin

Lallers96 wrote: »

How did everyone find Criminal?

I answered 5 but found it awful tight for time...I really hate those multiple part questions they end up being double the work of other Qs. My own fault for starting one and getting flummoxed by the 3rd part (man who fell during work and died due to defective machine).

I just waffled on about the Pitwood case and didn't have time to try my hand at making up some corporate manslaughter nonsense...

lnmbk

lawgrad2020 wrote: »

For Equity, can someone clarify if Campus Oil principles need to be applied in a problem Q for QT injunctions? I understand a plaintiff must prove a substantial risk of danger before a court will grant a qt but my manual and notes are conflicting on whether Campus Oil needs to be applied as well. I would be so grateful if someone can clear this up for me!

(Someone please correct me if I'm wrong) but yes, from what I understand you need Campus Oil principles AND szabo v ESAT digiphone which the test is proven substantial risk of danger (as applied in Ryanair v Aer Rianta, Garraghy v Bord na gCon, Murphy v Irish Water)

Lallers96

Essay on Duress was the only essay Q.

Problem Qs i did were
- 3 parter on homocide (quite varied scenarios I thought 1. vehicular homocide, 2. domestic violence leading to death, 3.employer failing to address known risk and employee fell to death on construction site)


- define criminal offence in Ireland/advise 2 women on proceedings from crime

- right to silence + previous convictions consideration for bail application problem q

- i genuinely can't remember what the other one was lol my brain is fried atm

Zlatorog

lawgrad2020 wrote: »

For Equity, can someone clarify if Campus Oil principles need to be applied in a problem Q for QT injunctions? I understand a plaintiff must prove a substantial risk of danger before a court will grant a qt but my manual and notes are conflicting on whether Campus Oil needs to be applied as well. I would be so grateful if someone can clear this up for me!

I think it does and would put it down if answering a QT injunction. In Szabo, Geoeghegan J considered the Campus Oil criteria but thought that it was inappropriate given the balancing of the plaintiff childrens lives and the business in the case. I think if there was an amenity of public good threatened, you could apply Campus but if there was something more of a threat to human life etc you could follow on from Geoghegan in that case and say that the Court may not apply Campus due to the consideratiosn. I think the reports have noted that there is confusion with the test in any event so once you give reasoning for the caselaw you're applying, it should be fine I hope!

Fe1user5555

What was q1 on criminal?

Dropin

Fe1user5555 wrote: »

What was q1 on criminal?

Not entirely sure, I presumed there was a defence of Mistake in there but I didn't hang around to find out. Can't say I was too impressed with the CAB question either.

Fe1user5555

honestly didn’t think it was the nicest paper I’ve seen hahaha

Ais20

Also was able to answer five but ran out of time on one of the last sections. Also got logged out which made me stress!! Found it different to some of the other exam years papers’ for some reason found it very very tight for time and the questions with the different parts were honestly so time consuming! First fe1 out of the way thank god for that

bluerthanu

Fe1user5555 wrote: »

What was q1 on criminal?

Honestly not sure, I went with self defence and Dwyer!

bigchungus

I said necessity but then the reasons why necessity doesn't apply and then lawful use of force. Fingers crossed

bigchungus

I found it alright until it logged me out midway through!! was so freaked. I did:
Q1 - necessity and self-defence
Q2 - Vehicular manslaughter, criminal and dangerous act, and gross negligence
Q5(i think?) - attempted rape, consent and the other offences
can't remember the numbers of the other two but the characterisation of crimes one and then right to silence/bail

Isn't he an alright marker for criminal anyway?

BookFast

Dropin wrote: »

Not entirely sure, I presumed there was a defence of Mistake in there but I didn't hang around to find out. Can't say I was too impressed with the CAB question either.

What in the name of God was that CAB question

Fe1Hopeful91

bigchungus wrote: »

I found it alright until it logged me out midway through!! was so freaked. I did:
Q1 - necessity and self-defence
Q2 - Vehicular manslaughter, criminal and dangerous act, and gross negligence
Q5(i think?) - attempted rape, consent and the other offences
can't remember the numbers of the other two but the characterisation of crimes one and then right to silence/bail

Isn't he an alright marker for criminal anyway?

Hey folks. Can I just ask what you did when it logged you out? Like does it just log you out of the whole BE website or just the exam? Did you ring LS or just log back in? And (last question) does your time pause when your logged out or do you just lose that time?

Fe1user5555

Would anyone have very condensed family and education notes for con? I haven’t done it yet and I really can’t face the long notes I prepared a few weeks ago!

vkfe1

bigchungus wrote: »

I found it alright until it logged me out midway through!! was so freaked. I did:
Q1 - necessity and self-defence
Q2 - Vehicular manslaughter, criminal and dangerous act, and gross negligence
Q5(i think?) - attempted rape, consent and the other offences
can't remember the numbers of the other two but the characterisation of crimes one and then right to silence/bail

Isn't he an alright marker for criminal anyway?

He's one of the nicer markers for sure. Hope you all got on okay

Anything different about the better examinations in terms of invigilation? I keep having nightmares that i'll get in trouble for taking bathroom breaks!!!

ruby1998

BookFast wrote: »

What in the name of God was that CAB question

I think (hope) it was classification of a crime and the Gillian v CAB case I said it wasn’t criminal in nature and they would not be entitled to 38.1 or A6 echr safeguards in the investigation

bigchungus

Fe1Hopeful91 wrote: »

Hey folks. Can I just ask what you did when it logged you out? Like does it just log you out of the whole BE website or just the exam? Did you ring LS or just log back in? And (last question) does your time pause when your logged out or do you just lose that time?

I freaked out for 30 seconds then it brought me back to the very start of the BE process - had to show ID, do the smile thing. Incredibly frustrating and the first time it didn't work, aswell, but after that I didn't have any trouble. I rang the LS after just to explain it to them and they said they had tonnes of people ringing them about it

Fe1Hopeful91

bigchungus wrote: »

I freaked out for 30 seconds then it brought me back to the very start of the BE process - had to show ID, do the smile thing. Incredibly frustrating and the first time it didn't work, aswell, but after that I didn't have any trouble. I rang the LS after just to explain it to them and they said they had tonnes of people ringing them about it

Ok thanks. I was hoping they would have sorted out the glitches after the November sitting. As if we don't have enough to be stressing about.

bigchungus

ruby1998 wrote: »

I think (hope) it was classification of a crime and the Gillian v CAB case I said it wasn’t criminal in nature and they would not be entitled to 38.1 or A6 echr safeguards in the investigation

by classification do you mean characterisation, as in the indicia set out in Melling? that's what I did and hopinggg that was the right thing to do