King's Inns Constitutional Law Exam

itchyblood

Hey guys,

Apologies if I'm posting in the wrong place but I can't find a relevant or recent thread for King's Inns exams.

I am sitting the exams in August. However, on the Constitutional Syllabus, there's no mention of Abortion law or the X Case. This leads to me believe that John O'Dowd does not require the topic to be covered. I'm doubting myself though - surely the right to life of the unborn should be on the course, no?

If anyone could shed some light on this for me, it'd be greatly appreciated.

chops018

I'm almost finished the FE1's so I can't give an overly informed opinion about the KI's exams. Hopefully someone who has done them will be able to tell you.

However my two cents from doing Constitutional in the FE's and those exams in general is to leave nothing out, especially the above. If anything extra knowledge like that will be great. Plus that would come under the broad heading of unremunerated rights (or is that right enumerated, I can't remember right now).

Anyways for the FE's I always try to leave nothing to chance and cover as much as I possibly can.

NoQuarter

Right to life. Page 9 of the syllabus.

Right to Life

Cosma v MJELR [2006] IEHC 36 (15 February)
Roche v Roche [2009] IESC 82 (15 December)
E(O) v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2008] 3 IR 760 (HC)
Ugbelese v MJELR [2009] IEHC 598 (17 December)
Fleming v Ireland [2013] IESC 19 (29 April)

itchyblood

Thanks for that. I thought that must've covered it but wasn't sure.

NoQuarter

itchyblood wrote: »

Thanks for that. I thought that must've covered it but wasn't sure.

The issue isn't whether we should have the right to abort so to speak, but rather, whether the unborn child has the right to live. Very topical at the moment obviously so it would be wise to cover it well.

Tom Young

NoQuarter wrote: »

The issue isn't whether we should have the right to abort so to speak, but rather, whether the unborn child has the right to live. Very topical at the moment obviously so it would be wise to cover it well.

I posted on the FE1 thread re recent constitutional cases.

Sullivan v Boylan 1 & 2; Cornec v Morrice; Flemming; DG; The Seanad; Abortion amendments.

A paper delivered by Eoin Carolan of UCD should be consulted.

Finally, do not cherry pick. Cover the entire syllabus.

You are being tested as a lawyer, not as someone who relies on grids to pass. The Inns doesn't allow for picking unfortunately.

Tom

Cody Pomeray

In conjunction with Cornec, bear Walsh v. News Group in mind as well.

Walsh is interesting because it adds a dimension of a journalist's source being a member of An Garda Síochána, and adds considerable clarity to where constitutional protections of sources do not apply. Very relevant at the moment.

Hippo

Question 1 on last year's entrance exam, the 50% monster, was on precisely this issue.

normz

If you take a look at the start of the syllabus it says that the cases listed on the syllabus are in addition to those in Kelly, Hogan & Whyte (4th Ed) so you will have to cover all the basic cases like X and A & B etc

Tommymck

Hey was wondering if any1 else was sitting the exam on Thursday and is struggling, I'm finding it harder than all the rest. Any1 out there have moc answers or any good notes? I'm struggling to answer past paper Q's

Tom Young

Tommymck wrote: »

Hey was wondering if any1 else was sitting the exam on Thursday and is struggling, I'm finding it harder than all the rest. Any1 out there have moc answers or any good notes? I'm struggling to answer past paper Q's

Don't panic.

Be current and clear.

Be confident in each area.

That's your best bet.