FE1 Exam Thread (Read 1st post!) NOTICE: YOU MAY SWAP EXAM GRIDS

bigtophat13

JCormac wrote: »

Have a sneaking suspicion that Adverse Possession will come up as an Essay Q this sitting

What would we do if it was looking for reform or the likes? Leigh v Jack maybe? More clarity for squatters over leasehold?

z6vm1dobfnca3x

bigtophat13 wrote: »

It confuses everyone, in R v Gnago even the house of lords were like "well you're either aiding or you're in common design but either way you're guilty"

They both have the same punishment right? Tried as primary offender?

I actually mix up all the incohate ones as well, it's a nuisance.

My understanding is that if you are convicted as an accessory i.e. aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring, you can be punished as if you are the principal offender (see S. 7(1)).

BUT if you are merely convicted for impeding the apprehension of the principal (accessory after the fact) then your sentence is essentially halved (see S.7 (4)).

That's my understanding but please let me know if I am wrong.

BemusedKettle

Would I be correct in saying that generally an accused has no right of election to waive a jury trial and opt for a Summary Trail, its just up to the DPP and DC Judge which way it goes, but some offences do specify that it is a prerequisite for the accused to waive his right to a jury trail for the offence to be tried in the DC?

bigtophat13

Kyree Bumpy Shrimp wrote: »

My understanding is that if you are convicted as an accessory i.e. aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring, you can be punished as if you are the principal offender (see S. 7(1)).

BUT if you are merely convicted for impeding the apprehension of the principal (accessory after the fact) then your sentence is essentially halved (see S.7 (4)).

That's my understanding but please let me know if I am wrong.

That's correct, is common design the same as aid and abetting though?

z6vm1dobfnca3x

bigtophat13 wrote: »

That's correct, is common design the same as aid and abetting though?

I think common design is more of a doctrine i.e. people are jointly responsible for any act done in the furtherance of a crime, but will not be jointly responsible for acts that go beyond the crime as originally conceived.

I would try to stick to an aiding and abetting charge under S.7 and then mention that the legislation is derived from the doctrine of joint enterprise / common design and therefore if X cannot be convicted under S.7, the courts may also convict him under the old common law principles.

That's the approach I'll be going with anyway.

Seems to be quite murky, and yet again the manuals are brutal at explaining the difference.

nimcdona

Kyree Bumpy Shrimp wrote: »

I think common design is more of a doctrine i.e. people are jointly responsible for any act done in the furtherance of a crime, but will not be jointly responsible for acts that go beyond the crime as originally conceived.

I would try to stick to an aiding and abetting charge under S.7 and then mention that the legislation is derived from the doctrine of joint enterprise / common design and therefore if X cannot be convicted under S.7, the courts may also convict him under the old common law principles.

That's the approach I'll be going with anyway.

Seems to be quite murky, and yet again the manuals are brutal at explaining the difference.

In AG v Ryan the CCA doesn't differenciate between the doctrine of common design and accessorial liability as different methods of imposing liability and basically said it involved both so could be useful to say that.

Theres also a criticism by NI Raifeartaigh basically saying that at the moment its impossible to say with certainty what qualifies a person to be an accessory etc and until its clearly set out there will be disparity between different judgements so kind of good for us for more flexibility when applying

Gunslinger92

Jaysis Courtney didn't do us any favours with that paper!

kasey0123

The weirdest company law paper in years ?

lawless11

kasey0123 wrote: »

The weirdest company law paper in years ?

Worst than the last sitting?

jewels652

Criminal law

I am running out of time here. Will I be safe just to cover theft, robbery and burglary for property offences.
The other type of offences such as handling stolen property, false accounting and making up without payments came up last sitting. So I am really really hoping that they won’t come up again.


Any advice please

Gunslinger92

No director duties was just cruel. I did manage 5 questions though and most of those 5 were reasonable so I'm hopeful it was enough

Leraf

Corporate capacity instead of slp was unexpected

Vegetarian2017

Gunslinger92 wrote:

Jaysis Courtney didn't do us any favours with that paper!

Oh no not another curveball paper!!What came up? I made the executive decision to sit company along with tort in sept. Focusing on constitution and eu.

laurar2019

3 qs on insolvency ?? what did ppl say for the uv q?

Vegetarian2017

Gunslinger92 wrote:

No director duties was just cruel. I did manage 5 questions though and most of those 5 were reasonable so I'm hopeful it was enough

No directors duties came up? What? Are they all setting random papers this year for a reason changing the flow/making even less predictive?

can someone list what exactly came up or put a pic of questions.

Pretty please

Vegetarian2017

laurar2019 wrote:

3 qs on insolvency ?? what did ppl say for the uv q?

Ouch.

Gunslinger92

Vegetarian2017 wrote: »

No directors duties came up? What? Are they all setting random papers this year for a reason changing the flow/making even less predictive?

can someone list what exactly came up or put a pic of questions.

Pretty please

I will do once I've eaten :pac: can never eat much before an exam and now I'm famished

laurar2019

q1 UV
2. s238 & 239
3. dividends
4. incorporation benefits and disadvantages
5. inabilty to pay debts
6. examinership
7. crystalisation
8. frauduland dispositions & Unfair preferences???


I think that was it???

Vegetarian2017

Gunslinger92 wrote:

I will do once I've eaten can never eat much before an exam and

Enjoy!! Someone put them up thanks!

Vegetarian2017

Definitely a very different format. No directors. Examinership is v rare isnt? It is a very insolvency based paper.
If one more paper throws a curveball I'm convinced they're raising the bar.
Like company is complete diff format. Yes I guess we aren't suppose to cut topics but when papers are in a format for years students do rely on some format naturally. As for Tort judging from past papers it was the worst /most random paper in years

Supermax1988

I have it as...

1. Ultra Vires (Essay)
2. Directors COI (PQ on S238 and 239)
3. Dividends (Essay)
4. Advantages/Disadvantages of Incorporation (PQ)
5. Winding Up (Disputed debts) (Essay)
6. Examinership (Problem Question)
7. Crystallisation of Floating Charges (Essay)
8. Realisation of Corp. Assets (PQ)

Tommybojangles

Sympathy for all the confused company reactions
Was the same in October 2017. Total curveball wtf paper but I ended up getting a 50 so don't give up hope!!

yournerd

Anyone have updated grids? Have other material to swap.

Vegetarian2017

Supermax1988 wrote:

1. Ultra Vires (Essay) 2. Directors COI (PQ on S238 and 239) 3. Dividends (Essay) 4. Advantages/Disadvantages of Incorporation (PQ) 5. Winding Up (Disputed debts) (Essay) 6. Examinership (Problem Question) 7. Crystallisation of Floating Charges (Essay) 8. Realisation of Corp. Assets (PQ)

Tommybojangles wrote:

Sympathy for all the confused company reactions Was the same in October 2017. Total curveball wtf paper but I ended up getting a 50 so don't give up hope!!

Haha feeling like the guinea pigs for the new format they'd have to be kind and throw a few generous marks surely lol

Vegetarian2017

Supermax1988 wrote:

1. Ultra Vires (Essay) 2. Directors COI (PQ on S238 and 239) 3. Dividends (Essay) 4. Advantages/Disadvantages of Incorporation (PQ) 5. Winding Up (Disputed debts) (Essay) 6. Examinership (Problem Question) 7. Crystallisation of Floating Charges (Essay) 8. Realisation of Corp. Assets (PQ)

Nice thanks. I see one director question.

Supermax1988

Vegetarian2017 wrote: »

Nice thanks. I see one director question.

Yeah one Directors Q but it was quite specific. Just looking back over my manual and there's only one case for S238 and none for S239.

Can't help but feel I'll sitting this exam again in October...:(

bigtophat13

Vegetarian2017 wrote: »

Definitely a very different format. No directors. Examinership is v rare isnt? It is a very insolvency based paper.
If one more paper throws a curveball I'm convinced they're raising the bar.
Like company is complete diff format. Yes I guess we aren't suppose to cut topics but when papers are in a format for years students do rely on some format naturally. As for Tort judging from past papers it was the worst /most random paper in years

From looking at grids tort was either the worst / 2nd worst paper in 19 sittings. Its the second worst in the sense that the topics that were examined were the second lowest in frequency (collectively) in all the papers. You could argue that it was a worse paper than the slightly weirder questioned one in that the more common topics were asked in a tricky format and the theory heavy stuff overlapped for 2 essay questions

laurar2019

what did people say for the 238 & 239 q like how much were you able to write??

and in the last q was a fraudulant and b unfair??

Vegetarian2017

Supermax1988 wrote:

Yeah one Directors Q but it was quite specific. Just looking back over my manual and there's only one case for S238 and none for S239.

Supermax1988 wrote:

Can't help but feel I'll sitting this exam again in October...

Honestly don't give up hope sometimes the harder papers the overall average is low so the fact of attempt of all five questions would age to stand to you.
Yes it is very specific. It was a topic i was covering before decided to pull the plug.

Vegetarian2017

bigtophat13 wrote:

From looking at grids tort was either the worst / 2nd worst paper in 19 sittings. Its the second worst in the sense that the topics that were examined were the second lowest in frequency (collectively) in all the papers. You could argue that it was a worse paper than the slightly weirder questioned one in that the more common topics were asked in a tricky format and the theory heavy stuff overlapped for 2 essay questions

Dreading the rest of the papers have a feeling the way things are going they'll all be a surprise