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

ejm47

LeagleEagle747 wrote: »

Quick question re the Kerins case and O'Brein. How is it that O'Brien succeeded yet Kerins didn't in what are quintessentially identical cases? Been googling around but I'm down a rabbit hole and beyond confused

Hope this helps!! From a handy (but v long) paper I found by Rossa Fanning SC:

https://www.mhc.ie/uploads/pdf/Kerins__OBrien_Paper_~_Rossa_Fanning_SC.PDF

"58. The fairly fundamental, albeit simplistic, question that might be asked, by an inquisitive law student is why did Mr. O’Brien lose and Ms. Kerins (at least partially) win?

59. Perhaps surprisingly, given that the two cases were heard by identically composed Courts and were decided contemporaneously, it is not easy to answer that question. Moreover, it is far from easy, in light of the decision in Kerins, to offer a confident view as to when the Superior Courts will be minded to intervene again.

60. The simplest way of distinguishing between the cases seems to be that the complaint of Mr. O’Brien was founded upon comments made by individual members of the Oireachtas which were constitutionally privileged. The case brought by Ms. Kerins was founded upon a criticism of the legality of the actions of PAC as a whole, which had already been condemned as ultra vires by CPP, part of the Oireachtas itself.

61. If Mr. O’Brien’s case was incapable of being seen as other than a collateral attack on constitutionally privileged speech in the Oireachtas, it is frankly not obvious why that of Ms. Kerins did not fail for precisely the same reason. Could it not be said that at the core of her complaint was what members of the PAC said to her and about her during her seven hour ordeal in February 2014? And if they could have made the same prejudicial and unfair comments in the Dáil chamber without risk of judicial intervention, why should the courts offer a remedy in circumstances where they showboated at a Committee as distinct from in the Dáil chamber itself?"

BigSprogs

LeagleEagle747 wrote: »

Quick question re the Kerins case and O'Brein. How is it that O'Brien succeeded yet Kerins didn't in what are quintessentially identical cases? Been googling around but I'm down a rabbit hole and beyond confused

Don't have my notes on me at the minute so I could be wrong, but I was under the impression it was the other way around?
In Kerins, she succeeded because the court wasn't being asked to hold any individual TD amenable for their utterances - they were just being asked to rule that the PAC as a whole had breached her rights (as they questioned her beyond what she had been invited for etc) Also, CPP had already found PAC had breached rules. Plus, a lot of it came down to the fact that if the Courts did not offer some sort of remedy to Kerins, she would have no remedy as the Dail offered none.
In O'Brien on the other hand, CPP found McGrath and Doherty had done nothing wrong. What O'Brien was essentially seeking judicial review on was the CPP's decision not to punish Doherty and McGrath for their utterances. So O'Brien wanted the court to indirectly hold Doherty and McGrath amenable for their utterances, by saying "Oi, CPP, ye better give out to the lads for what they said!" Privilege means they are immune from direct and indirect attempts to make them amenable for utterances.

So to summarise, Kerins the Court thought it was okay because they weren't holding anyone in particular amenable for an utterance - just the general conduct of the PAC. O'Brien the Court refused relief because by finding CPP were wrong in not punishing the TDs they would essentially be holding the TDs amenable to the Court... except indirectly.

Anyways that's just what I made of it. I may be wrong but sure what odds, it'll be over this time tomorrow.

jus_me

Constitutional

If we get a question on equality before the law- is this referring to equality or is it requiring an answer on open justice (Gilchrist etc) just want to get an opinion. Find it confusing what exactly a question on equality before the law wants u to get into

fLawless123

Is anybody else not able to see Equity and the other subjects on the calendar on Betterexaminations?

laworlawww

fLawless123 wrote: »

Is anybody else not able to see Equity and the other subjects on the calendar on Betterexaminations?

they only seem to put the exam up the night before/morning of an exam so I wouldn't worry, I can see Constitutional and nothing else

bluerthanu

ejm47 wrote: »

Hope this helps!! From a handy (but v long) paper I found by Rossa Fanning SC:

https://www.mhc.ie/uploads/pdf/Kerins__OBrien_Paper_~_Rossa_Fanning_SC.PDF

"58. The fairly fundamental, albeit simplistic, question that might be asked, by an inquisitive law student is why did Mr. O’Brien lose and Ms. Kerins (at least partially) win?

59. Perhaps surprisingly, given that the two cases were heard by identically composed Courts and were decided contemporaneously, it is not easy to answer that question. Moreover, it is far from easy, in light of the decision in Kerins, to offer a confident view as to when the Superior Courts will be minded to intervene again.

60. The simplest way of distinguishing between the cases seems to be that the complaint of Mr. O’Brien was founded upon comments made by individual members of the Oireachtas which were constitutionally privileged. The case brought by Ms. Kerins was founded upon a criticism of the legality of the actions of PAC as a whole, which had already been condemned as ultra vires by CPP, part of the Oireachtas itself.

61. If Mr. O’Brien’s case was incapable of being seen as other than a collateral attack on constitutionally privileged speech in the Oireachtas, it is frankly not obvious why that of Ms. Kerins did not fail for precisely the same reason. Could it not be said that at the core of her complaint was what members of the PAC said to her and about her during her seven hour ordeal in February 2014? And if they could have made the same prejudicial and unfair comments in the Dáil chamber without risk of judicial intervention, why should the courts offer a remedy in circumstances where they showboated at a Committee as distinct from in the Dáil chamber itself?"

thanks very much for sharing that. in my current delirious state I think I got too much amusement from this line: ‘ To describe PAC’s treatment of Ms. Kerins as that of a kangaroo court (now an orthodox view in more reflective quarters in Leinster House) would perhaps be unkind to kangaroos.’

lawgrad49

jus_me wrote: »

Constitutional

If we get a question on equality before the law- is this referring to equality or is it requiring an answer on open justice (Gilchrist etc) just want to get an opinion. Find it confusing what exactly a question on equality before the law wants u to get into

If I saw the word equality it would be taking me directly to Art 40.1 & all the jurisprudence that comes with it. Probably be a difference in treatment in a problem Q, some form of discrimination. An essay on equality would be nice imo.

If Gilchrist comes up it will either be in an essay form talking about open justice or a problem question where someone is seeking a hearing in camera, so you'll have to advise them on the likelihood.

Can't really see a question where you'd be interlinking them.

Fe1user5555

https://www.irishlegal.com/article/supreme-court-woman-suing-cmh-clinical-director-awarded-costs-and-granted-declaration#:~:text=In%20June%202020%2C%20the%20Supreme,the%20conditions%20of%20her%20release not sure if this has been posted in but found this helpful in relation to MC case about mootness

flepetch

Equity
anyone else leaving out secret trusts? seems like its due up not sure if it'd be better to focus on resulting trusts and express trusts instead? would be grateful for any advice!

Fe123

What parts of Liberty are people focusing on most

awsah

Fe123 wrote: »

What parts of Liberty are people focusing on most

i am wondering would a wardship matter come up again as it is still so topical but also it just was asked in nov, so I am going to go with illegality of detention per Ryan v Governor of Mount Joy Prison

Paraeagle

flepetch wrote: »

Equity
anyone else leaving out secret trusts? seems like its due up not sure if it'd be better to focus on resulting trusts and express trusts instead? would be grateful for any advice!

I’m taking a gamble on it coming up. Covering tracing for the same reason too (light a candle for me)! The obvious trade-off is it uses up valuable time that could be spent cramming for the popular topics so depends on whether or not you’re willing to take the risk.

flepetch

Paraeagle wrote: »

I’m taking a gamble on it coming up. Covering tracing for the same reason too (light a candle for me)! The obvious trade-off is it uses up valuable time that could be spent cramming for the popular topics so depends on whether or not you’re willing to take the risk.

yeah very fair, i'm also gambling on tracing! hating how unpredictable the paper seems to be.
would i be right in saying secret trusts only come up as a problem Q?

FEONE

awsah wrote: »

i am wondering would a wardship matter come up again as it is still so topical but also it just was asked in nov, so I am going to go with illegality of detention per Ryan v Governor of Mount Joy Prison

is this to do with haebus corpus?

Paraeagle

flepetch wrote: »

yeah very fair, i'm also gambling on tracing! hating how unpredictable the paper seems to be.
would i be right in saying secret trusts only come up as a problem Q?

Yep according to my manual/grid! There aren’t too many cases to remember for it either so at least it’s somewhat manageable.

nmurphy1441

Property...

What’s the current position in Adverse Possession??? It always confuses me...

bluerthanu

Fe1user5555 wrote: »

https://www.irishlegal.com/article/supreme-court-woman-suing-cmh-clinical-director-awarded-costs-and-granted-declaration#:~:text=In%20June%202020%2C%20the%20Supreme,the%20conditions%20of%20her%20release not sure if this has been posted in but found this helpful in relation to MC case about mootness

At the point now where I’m questioning my own name but has mootness actually ever come up? I guess you can mention it, but substantively it’s always been locus standi, right?

2020FE1

FEONE wrote: »

is this to do with haebus corpus?

I’ve covered almost all of liberty except habeas corpus. There’s absolutely no way I can fit anything else in at this late stage.
I feel like I’ve started from scratch since Mondays update. 😭

LawStudent999

Aw lads. Brain is absolutely gone to mush. Considering packing it all in and becoming something that takes less effort - soundcloud rapper perhaps.

Iconic10

since houses of oireachtas and keri a and o brien came up last year it would hardly come again would it ? i didn’t cover it

fe1prep2021

I haven't even glanced at liberty, am I taking a massive risk leaving it out? I couldn't string one sentence together about it at this stage

LawStudent999

Iconic10 wrote: »

since houses of oireachtas and keri a and o brien came up last year it would hardly come again would it ? i didn’t cover it

Covered it briefly on the off chance

FE1Nov20

Iconic10 wrote: »

since houses of oireachtas and keri a and o brien came up last year it would hardly come again would it ? i didn’t cover it

I didn't cover it either .. the panic is really starting to set in

Iconic10

did liberty come up last year ?

Fe1user5555

bluerthanu wrote: »

At the point now where I’m questioning my own name but has mootness actually ever come up? I guess you can mention it, but substantively it’s always been locus standi, right?

It never has!! I just got freaked out by everyone mentioning it on here hahaha only have 2 cases for it

Fe1user5555

Iconic10 wrote: »

did liberty come up last year ?

Came up in November 2020 paper - according to my grid that’s the first time it has come up since October 2016

Iconic10

Fe1user5555 wrote: »

Came up in November 2020 paper - according to my grid that’s the first time it has come up since October 2016

i haven’t covered it. was about to do it now - have ye left it out ? seen some people saying they are covering it

Hamerzan Sickles

Hamerzan Sickles is getting thoroughly constitutional law'd tonight.

FE1swag

RE Attorney General QS
Does anyone have a summary of the O'Shea v AG case?

Fe1user5555

Iconic10 wrote: »

i haven’t covered it. was about to do it now - have ye left it out ? seen some people saying they are covering it

I left it out!