Kings Inns Entrance Exams

cramming

Hi,

Sitting Inns entrance exams in August.

Just wondering if anybody has any good exam tips... ?

E.g. I have heard that Paul Ward always puts up Liability for Animals.

Just wondering if anybody has any tips on Company...? This is the first year that Prof Irene Lynch Fannon is examiner... Any UCC ppl with an indication of what topics she prefers etc..... I can't find UCC's exam papers online

All help would be gratefully appreciated!! Looking to cut out some topics at this stage!

focusing

Cover the entire Tort course in depth. You can't leave anything out.

Learn all the stuff on unconstitutionally obtained evidence really well, since it can come up on a number of different papers.

skyhighflyer

Had Paul Ward for tort in first year. Told us that as examiner in Tort for Inns he likes:

1. Forefront-of-liability areas like economic loss and nervous shock
2. He likes to see an awareness of recent decisions from the Commonwealth concerning the above.


Also, he expects knowlege of the whole course as the above poster says.

Sangre

Have had Ward for family and tort. He loves his recent national and international judgements and is always looking for extensive knowlegde. I have always found him to be a fair marker.

hada

On a side note, what's the overall consensus on how hard the kings inns exams are? I mean in comparison to the fe1s for example..

focusing

They're just as hard as the FE1s, it's just that the FE1s have an artificially high marking curve to keep down numbers.

A paper that was good enough to get you a 2:1 in college will pass you comfortably (but just watch out for Tort)

cramming

hi Guys,

Thanks for the tips ... will take the stuff re Tort on board....Did any body go to UCC or even know how to get hold of past UCC exam papers..

New examiner in Company law is asking 4 questions from 8 which is a farily significant departure from what has been the case up to now... just wondering what her style of questioning is like.

I hate Company with a passion so would love to narrow the list of topics a bit.

focusing

The best preparation for the / any Company Law exam is Sinead McGrath's book.

It has exactly the right amount of detail and it's very clear.

RDMH

In addition to the original query, does anyone know what Ruth Cannon is like for Evidence, what she likes and dislikes? Getting very confused on whether she will or will not depart from the type of questions previously asked? I have tried to get my hands on some past papers from Ruth but like the original poster for Company have been unable to get my hands on them. Any assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated:D

cramming

Hi RDMH - sorry i cant be of help on that one... i haven't been able to come across any papers for Ruth Cannon either. Does anyone know for sure what the pass mark for the Inns exams is 40% or 50%?

dermot_sheehan

RDMH wrote:

In addition to the original query, does anyone know what Ruth Cannon is like for Evidence, what she likes and dislikes? Getting very confused on whether she will or will not depart from the type of questions previously asked? I have tried to get my hands on some past papers from Ruth but like the original poster for Company have been unable to get my hands on them. Any assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated:D

Ruth Cannon did not lecture for Evidence in Trinity, she does constitutional II and Land Law II.

RDMH

Thank gabhain7, it will be interesting to see whether she will follow the past papers or diverts substantially from them.

Cramming, pass mark is 40% however all 5 exams must be passed in one sitting. The Kings Inns also allow pass by compensation.

cramming

RDMH... thanks for that.... couldn't find a marks and standards section on the website or info supplied by Kings Inns.

This is total hearsay;)!.... but i do know of someone (friend of a friend) who called Kings Inns on this apparently they confirmed that Ruth Cannon will not be altering the structure of the exam paper.. i.e. should still be two sections.

Mandatory question 1 (50%) on unconstitutionally obtained evidence etc... and then section B a choice of 2 from 3.

RDMH

The format of the exam has not changed, it is compulsory question for number 1, and 2 from part be (which is 2 out of 3) however the problem is what topics will Ruth go for, if she follows the same format as the previous examiner then ok, BUT if she departs from this then there is a real risk that a number of people who are depending on her following the previous examiner will be in for a shock. I'm trying to cover everything I can and hope for the best. I did have Ruth many yaers ago for Contract and she was a very fair marker, however on the flip side to that the way she askes her questions is very different to anything else I've come across.

focusing

<snip>

Invest in McGrath or Healy as your text.

hullaballoo

Ruth Cannon is a member of this website and reads this forum.

RDMH

Well hopefully Ruth will not have moved away from the sample paper too much, with there being only 3 questions on part B of the exam if there is a major departure on the areas examined then there will be a lot of fails as nearly everyone that I have spoken to can't see how she can/will depart from what has previously been asked in the past.

Focusing, I have looked at McGrath and Healy's books and have also looked at Ruth's, given the fact that Ruth is the examiner I think it best to make her text the main text with the others supplementing that.

Amazotheamazing

hullaballoo wrote:

Ruth Cannon is a member of this website and reads this forum.

If ths is true, can I just thank Ruth for her revision book on land, one day of (seriously) hard cramming with that book dragged me from probable fail to a passing that FE1.

focusing

hullaballoo wrote:

<snip>

I'll be polite enough to keep my absolute disagreement with your editing off this thread.

For those who didn't see my other post, I never suggested that Cannon & Neligan's text (October 2002) wouldn't be indicative of Cannon's areas of interest, merely that Healy (July 2004) and McGrath (December 2004) were in my opinion better texts than C&N and Fennell.

What is beyond the realm of opinion is that Healy & McGrath are more up-to-date by two years. That may even be the root of their current popularity.

skyhighflyer

focusing wrote:

I'll be polite enough to keep my absolute disagreement with your editing off this thread.

For those who didn't see my other post, I never suggested that Cannon & Neligan's text (October 2002) wouldn't be indicative of Cannon's areas of interest, merely that Healy (July 2004) and McGrath (December 2004) were in my opinion better texts than C&N and Fennell.

What is beyond the realm of opinion is that Healy & McGrath are more up-to-date by two years. That may even be the root of their current popularity.

What he said. That's noble regard to free speech right there :mad:

I also agree with the opinion expressed regarding the texts themselves.

hullaballoo

This is boards.ie. There is no free speech. Please read the stickies that are posted in every single forum on the site, and in a site-wide announcement to find out why.

johnnysmurfman

Passing off has come up on all of the tort papers as far as I can recollect, animals are also popular and defamation came up as part of a question last year, you should also be prepared to deal with a question on the development of the law of tort (that type of question came up last year).

Constitutional requires a good knowledge of the ECHR and their judgements, equality, free speech etc, it's pretty rights focussed, forget about the President, the Oireachtas etc, it's a waste of your time.

Criminal is always straightforward, just make sure you know the offences and you can't go wrong. I would say be prepared for a question regarding unlawful carnal knowledge, I would say that in the light of recent events it's likely to come up and it came up last year.

Company last year was a pig of an exam in my opinion, but it was marked easily, I wouldn't leave anything out for company, but that's my own way of doing it.

Good luck and don't panic.

RDMH

New examiner in Company, 8 questions not 6, have seen past papers and she appear to focus on formation, directors duties, ultra vires and capital maintanence but I agree with previous poster, cover as much as possible.

cramming

It has felt like this week would never end!!

I feel like i'm going on my summer holidays - at last!

Thanks for all the helpful tips advice etc.... hope everybody did well!

dermot_sheehan

Me too.

Was there anything the torts paper didn't cover? Had Rylands v. fletcher, nusiance, negligence, fatal accidents, scienter, 2 questions involving dogs!!!, false imprisonment, trespass.

Criminal had sex offences, burgulary, self defence, provocation,

cramming

Yeah he couldn't have crammed another issue in even if he tried, each question had 4 or 5 points to answer!

It was just a case of trying to find time to answer it all - not to mind remember a case name!

Worried about passing overall to be honest - i think some of the papers were really tough... Evidence has destroyed me and company was very much touch and go ... the fair procedures question in Consitutional was a little supprising to!

Monkeyboots

There were so many issues in that Tort paper I actually didnt get to finish it myself. Personally, I am just so happy this week is over. It's a week of pure hell for anyone thinking about doing them next year - Unless you have a brain like a sponge of course! Totally an endurance test.

RDMH

Company was a nightmare for me, everything else pretty ok. Word of advice for anyone doing them next year. Start your study now!!

matty11111

I noticed someone say that provocation was up on the criminal law paper. I got the feeling that that question was about self defence and not provocation, though you might have made a passing reference to provocation. The question asked of any 'defence' (singular) available to the accused and the facts appeared not to support provocation.

Company certainly was difficult and evidence was bordering on the downright unfair!

I have a query re the atheism question in the constitutional exam. Were they looking for freedom of religion, freedom of expression or both?

dermot_sheehan

I though company and torts were bloody hard.

I felt the question in criminal was answered by the defendent getting manslaughter due to provocation. I looked at self defence, s.18 and 19 NFOAPA 1997, DPP v. O'Dwyer, etc, etc, and the objective test for self-defence being a complete defence, and subjective test being a reductive. Objectively the force used by the defendent was unreasonable, pretty simple conclusion considering it was used against someone posing no immediate threat outside his house. Next question is subjectively did the defendent think it was honestly reasonably. I said probably not, but then the defendent would probably get a reductive defence due to provocation. This is because objectively the words uttered by the victim could cause a reasonable person to lose control, but in Ireland we don't even have an objective test, we have a subjective test (DPP v. MacEoin), though the courts have stated its hard to prove evidentially the words subjectively caused you to lose control if they objectively do not constitute a threat.

That's how I did it anywas.

The constitutional one was basically a take off Murphy v. IRTC which went to the ECHR as Murphy v. Ireland.

matty11111

thanx gabhain7
yeh u appear to have done a good job with the self-defence/provocation question. Tom O'Malley was my lecturer in NUIG and he tends to ask one issue at a time which is why I did not focus much on provocation and looked mostly towards self-defence. Also I noticed that when provocation does come up the accused usually says somthing like 'I totally lost it' etc ie a total loss of self-control.

Murphy v. IRTC was the major case but i was unsure if they were looking for religion or expression as murphy was argued under both headings. So i threw them both in.

Tort was crammed and Im kicking myself for missing the scienter issue in question 2! But there were just so many issues. For example the doctors/products question could also have included hedley byrne ie the distributor made a negligent misstatement. It was probably a badly written paper in some respects. Incidentally, everyone I have asked says they did not write about concurrent wrongdoers in that question.

Oh, and Tom is a fair marker, as is Liam O'Malley for anyone doing Blackhall company law. (Liam is actually extrememly generous!) Rumour has it that one should watch out for Lucy-Anne but i always found her to be quite fair.

cramming

Best of luck to all getting their results this week!

hullaballoo

Good luck from these quarters too! I hope you all get your marks.

Bíodh an t-adh libh go léir.

johnnysmurfman

Your results are on www.kingsinns.ie - It seems that everybody who sat them passed them.

Monkeyboots

So at this stage we all know our fate...:D

But does anyone know about the actual BL Degree ??? Anyone there who has completed it in recent years and could give an insight as to what exactly happens on the course? I mean I know its not an academic course and there are lots of moots involved and practical stuff, but if anyone could give a better picture of whats to be expect that would be great. e.g is there lots of group work ? lots of pre-class preparation required ? etc.

Monkeyboots

johnnysmurfman wrote:

It seems that everybody who sat them passed them.

So you're all in the pub then???

dermot_sheehan

Looking at results from Queenslands Gold Coast here:D

ooleary

One year on, same question (for 2007). Any hints or advice for the August exams? Also does anyone have the griffith college notes for the King's Inns course? Willing to pay...

Tom Young

Sorry no, but I am aware that the Evidence paper shifted drastically in format from previous years. In re. Question 1.

Criminal, Tort, Company should be fine. Some minor changes re: Defence of mistake and removal of strict liability for sexual offences and I guess also the CJ Act that was botched last year.

Developments in Constitutional and Evidence are going to need to be watched out for. e.g., Cc v. Ireland and A v. Governor of Arbor Hill and the various changes to the Criminal Law in the Evidential sense in the mean time.

dats_right

I haven't sat the King's Inns exams, but I did read this post with some interest. Two issues arising, one poster said that the King's Inns are as tough as the FE-1's and yet from what other posters have said there would appear to have been a 100% pass rate. Quite clearly, one of those statements is wrong. Does anybody have any thoughts on which one?

I know that I have my own thoughts on the matter, as I've personally known a few people who repeatedly tried to pass their first 3 fe-'s only to give up after admitting defeat and sail onto the BL course. Now I'm not saying that the post-BL from King's Inns that it is an easier career, far from it in fact. But, it would appear to me, to be at least on the face of it, to be infinitely easier to get on the BL course than to pass all 8 fe-1's.

Jo King

People have failed the Kings Inns exams. In some cases people have walked out during the first exam and not come back. That being said, if you get into the seat at all to sit the exams your chances are pretty good, but it is no walkover.

johnnyskeleton

dats_right wrote:

I haven't sat the King's Inns exams, but I did read this post with some interest. Two issues arising, one poster said that the King's Inns are as tough as the FE-1's and yet from what other posters have said there would appear to have been a 100% pass rate. Quite clearly, one of those statements is wrong. Does anybody have any thoughts on which one?

I know that I have my own thoughts on the matter, as I've personally known a few people who repeatedly tried to pass their first 3 fe-'s only to give up after admitting defeat and sail onto the BL course. Now I'm not saying that the post-BL from King's Inns that it is an easier career, far from it in fact. But, it would appear to me, to be at least on the face of it, to be infinitely easier to get on the BL course than to pass all 8 fe-1's.

Firstly, there are a limited number of places in Blackhall, and a multiple of that trying to get in each year. So some people fail FE1s not because they deserve to fail, or that the exam was a "tougher" exam, but because it is marked harder. By contrast the KI exam criteria is that anybody who is good enough can get in. Since everyone who sits the exams must have either a law degree or the dipolma in law and will put in a reasonable amount of study, most people who sit the KI exams can get in.

Secondly, there are only 5 KI exams compared with 8 FE1s.

Thirdly, KI allows compensation in one exam.

Finally, there is that random element in that we don't know who is sitting each exam, how much work they are doing, and what the examiners are looking for.

So I might try to reconcile the conflicting views by saying that it is more of a challenge to more people to sit the FE1s, and the chances of passing for any given person sitting the KI entrance exams is higher than any given person sitting the FE1s (especially more than 5 at once), but that does not mean that either of the exams are tougher or easier than the other.

Font22

is there a deadline for applying to sit the kings inn exams?

johnnyskeleton

Font22 wrote:

is there a deadline for applying to sit the kings inn exams?

Entrance Examination 30.April.2007 €510
Late Applications 06.July.2007 €900

Link

Font22

thanks, was wondering because recently have been having a career wobbly i.e. solictor or barrister. typical, right in the middle of finals I start thinking about it!

johnnyskeleton

Font22 wrote:

thanks, was wondering because recently have been having a career wobbly i.e. solictor or barrister. typical, right in the middle of finals I start thinking about it!

I wouldn't be too concerned about it - I doubt many people who are in their final year of college are thinking about it either. If I can offer you a bit of personal advice, there's no harm in taking a year or two out to travel, work in different areas, or even (if you really love the law) working in a legal office or hanging around in the courts. You could even do some work experience for a solicitor and then a barrister and see which you prefer.

Font22

done all that already. i've lived abroad and travelled far and wide so now just want to get stuck in to be honest, might sound strange but there u go!