King's Inns entrance exams - Over at last!

hullaballoo

They were all fair enough papers. I'd estimate that I failed two. Pity really! Have to make up my mind what to do for the year now!

smashey

You won't be stuck. A lot of people are greatly surprised by results when they thought they had failed. Welcome back.

johnnyskeleton

hullaball&#250 wrote:

They were all fair enough papers. I'd estimate that I failed two. Pity really! Have to make up my mind what to do for the year now!

What two and why do you think you failed can I ask? Did you not answer some of the questions?

Tom Young

Well done. I heard that Company was the general hurdle. Constitutional a bit nasty too!

hullaballoo

johnnyskeleton wrote:

What two and why do you think you failed can I ask? Did you not answer some of the questions?

I only answered 3/4 in tort. It's a bit of a worry. I answered the required amount in the rest.

I think I failed constitutional as well, because I discovered the night before that I'd more or less been studying the wrong stuff all summer. Typical really.

Tom Young

Couple of things:

1. If you managed to get over 36% in one and passed the rest with a certain margin of appreciation they will pass you by compensation.

2. Constitutional vacilated violently from the normal expectations, in saying that the syllabus is 13 areas, so hedging was a problem. The paper had propoprtionality all over it via Property, the doctrine itself and delegated legislation.

3. I found Paul Wards paper in Tort tough due to the amount of Torts per question and rush to complete the paper. An example, question 1. Had: Passing-Off, Injurious Falsehood, Negligent Misstatements, Economic Loss, Defamation/On-Line Libel. 2. Had Private Nuisance, Detinue, Conversion, Trespass Ab Initio, Trespass to Chattels, Assault and Battery, Control of Animals. 3. Products with PTSD, 4. Vicarious Liability, Shock, Control of Dogs Act, Scienter, Negligence Simpliciter, Limitations on Death/Fatal Injuries etc. and I did 6. With was Tort of Deceit, Trespass, Assault, Battery, Causation and remoteness.

The paper was challenging to finish and was by no means a magnum opus for me. The difficulty was laying out the Torts and trying work them into some type of structure before moving on.

3.(a). My skin hurts, I am so goddam tired from the week.

4. Company was a problem for me. 3 hours sleep and a shocking 'holy' awful choice. I couldn't even remember Examinership, which is piss easy.

5. The numbers went down drastically from Monday to Friday. Started with 255 an finished under the 200 from what I heard.

6. No sexual offences on the Criminal paper! Mostly Mens rea, Murder and Property, Criminal Damage!! Wow.

7. Evidence, nice paper. Very specific questions. Had McGrail and Hudson off pat, so was fine. Question 1 was challenging.

Don't be worrying, you'll get through. The issue this years is Admin law becomes a requirement for the BL next year and Contract replaces Company in 2008 entrance examination.

I've also realised I write in sanscrit!

johnnyskeleton

hullaball&#250 wrote:

I only answered 3/4 in tort. It's a bit of a worry. I answered the required amount in the rest.

I think I failed constitutional as well, because I discovered the night before that I'd more or less been studying the wrong stuff all summer. Typical really.

I wouldn't be worrying about constitutional just yet - it's amazing how much of it seems to seep into your subconscious and if you answered the questions from basic constitutional principles, I'd say you have a good chance of getting it.

As for tort, if the other 3 questions were good you could still pass, and if not there is always compensation as Tom points out: if you get 30% in tort and your average mark is 40% for all exams, then you pass by compensation.

While I don't want to give you false hope, and people do fail the exams from time to time, I wouldn't rule out getting the exams just yet. So don't apply to join the French foreign leigon just yet.

Well done to both of you, and good luck.

2rs

What a week. It took forever to come about and then passed by in the blink of an eye.

Constitution is the only worry for me i think. Overall I think these exams were more about what the examiners left out, as opposed to the questions they did ask. As Tom said there was no sexual offences in the criminal paper, but, unless I missed something, there was not much to do with the Criminal Justice Act 06/07 in either evidence or constitutional which alot of people were tipping big time.

cycleoin

What a week indeed! I'm only coming around now...

Tort was definitely my worst paper - I attempted four questions but let myself down big time with how I answered. APart from the fact that my law wasn't up to scratch (tort being my worst area), I found that I just didn't have the energy to formulate proper answers. And my hand writing slowly deteriorated into a barely, if, legible scrawl.

Definitely not holding my breath. I hope you guys get in!

johnnyskeleton

Would anybody with a scanner care to share the papers/some of the questions?

Tom Young

Yes, not a problem. Will do that for you tomorrow. Send you a pm when done. Oh, I think the Tort paper is somewhere on Dublin 1. I used it as a beer mat outside the King's Inn. Others can do. Tom.

Tom Young

Evidence Section A.

1. Maurice is charged with the Murder of his wife Emma, who was found beaten to death in their family home on Sunday, March 1st 2006. The prosecution will argue that Maurice killed Emma because he was in love with his employee Vicky and wanted to avoid an expensive divorce settlement.

Two weeks after Emma's funeral, members of the Gardai entered Maurice's place of work pursuant to a search warrent and confiscated computers belonging to Maurice and Vicky. A number of romantic emails from Maurise to Vicky on these computers. It subsequently transpired that the search warrant under which the Gardai entered was found to have been out of date and invalid. Nonetheless the prosecution is seeking to adduce these emails and also the evidence of Maurice's former girlfriend, Anna, who split up with Maurice over ten years ago. Anna will testify that Maurice was violent towards her throughout their relationship.

The prosecution also with to adduce a statement by Victoria made while she was detained under the Criminal Justice Act 1984 in which she stated that she had been having an affair with Maurice for over a year prior to Emma's death. At the time of her detention Vicky was taking anti-depressant by the name of Prozac and Maurice claims that her statement is invalid on the basis that she was denied access to this drug during the period of her detention.

Finally, Jane, who works on a battered woman's helpline, claims to have received a call from Maurice's home number four months previously in which an unidentified woman told her that she was being abused by her husband and was in fear of her life.

Based on the information in the above scenario, prepare a memorandum on admissibility of the following evidence from the point of view of the defence, anticipating likely arguments from the prosecution.

(a) the emails found on Maurice's and Victoria's computers;
(b) Anna's evidence regarding Maurice's violence towards her;
(c) Vicky's statement detailing her affair with Mauricee;
(d) Jane's evidence regarding the unidentifed woman caller.

50 Marks

Section B.

2. Outline the rationale and scope of the doctrine of legal professional privilege in Irish law.

3. Pat is charged with the rape of Sheila, his 19 year old former girlfriend. Both Sheila and Pat are mildly handicapped and live in a community care centre. Sheila alleges that Pat came to her flat in the centre late at night some weeks after their relationship had ended, forced his way into the sitting room and raped her. Sheila's 9 year-old brother, Frank, was in the kitchen of the flat at the time and can give evidence that he heard Sheila strongly objecting to Pat's advances. Critically discuss whether or not Sheila and Frank are competent to give evidence in the proceedings against Pat and, if so, what directions, if any, should be given by the judge in relation to their evidence.

4. When will an accused person be regarded as having cast aside his or her shield under Section 1(f)(ii) of the Criminal Justice (Evidence) Act 1924?

End.