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

WesternC123

awsah wrote: »

This is literally all my notes on pblic nuisance, I can't see it coming up as a full PQ but would be handy to know for part of an essay or part of PQ

Public Nuisance

Civil actions for public nuisance are taken by the Attorney General.

A private action for a public nuisance can be taken where the Plaintiff suffered particular or special damage beyond that suffered by other members of the public.

Boyd V Great Northern Railway :
The Plaintiff must have suffered “some appreciable damage peculiar to himself beyond that suffered by other members of the public”

Smith v Wilson :
“Everyone who individually sustains particular injury can apply for damages or an injunction.”

Ya I have v little on public nuisance as well but that's really helpful. Thanks so much!

L.E.D

Hi, does anyone have notes on vehicular manslaughter? or can you tell me where is in the city college manual? I've checked and checked and can't find it, think my brain is not functioning lol

Lallers96

Very concerned about this random "score" attributed to my exam recording. Seems too arbitrary to fail someone based off the way their eyes move.

Jeremiah25

Lallers96 wrote: »

Very concerned about this random "score" attributed to my exam recording. Seems too arbitrary to fail someone based off the way their eyes move.

Doesn't sound like it will be a randomly generated score and, as they have said, if a high score is attributed to a candidate this will be subject to review.

Would imagine it would take something pretty conclusive to fail someone given the circumstances.

Aoibhin511

Lallers96 wrote: »

Very concerned about this random "score" attributed to my exam recording. Seems too arbitrary to fail someone based off the way their eyes move.

I actually think there are enough checks in place on this one. Its not a random score, everyone is scored and if your scored is high enough above the average to cause concern it will be sent for review by a human and if that human think you're cheating it gets sent to the education committee for investigation. It's like submitting an assignment on turnitin, the software usually flags very high for law essays because everyone is citing the same cases and quoting the same academics/judges. But if your score is really high your lecturer will go through each flag and decide whether or not it is a valid one.
No one is going to be failed on the software alone and as the above poster said the difference between cheating and thinking is obvious to a human.

awsah

L.E.D wrote: »

Hi, does anyone have notes on vehicular manslaughter? or can you tell me where is in the city college manual? I've checked and checked and can't find it, think my brain is not functioning lol

it's under criminal negligence manslaughter

Vehicular Manslaughter – a motorist who causes death as a result of negligent driving can be guilty of manslaughter, provided his negligence meets the standard as set out in Dunleavy.
 S. 4 Road Traffic Act 2011 – makes it a crime to drive a vehicle in a public place without due care and attention, and if such driving causes death or seriously bodily harm, the motorist is liable to a max punishment of 2 years imprisonment and a fine of €10,000.

 O’ Brien J. in AG v Quinlan defined “dangerous driving” as: “driving in a manner in which a reasonably prudent motorist, having regard to all the circumstances, would clearly recognise as involving direct and serious risk of harm to the public.”

awsah

Lallers96 wrote: »

Very concerned about this random "score" attributed to my exam recording. Seems too arbitrary to fail someone based off the way their eyes move.

noone has said that you will fail based on the way your eyes move. Just don't cheat and you will have no problem with it. They have said that this is the only way to do them under the circumstance and if people are not comfortable they can wait until physical sittings are allowed again. I am not happy with some of the conditions of this exam but I am not waiting an indefinite amount of time to sit the exams, as Law hero would say, if you are spending time worrying about things that are out of your control then you are wasting time that should be spent studying.

shaunadennyham

orlaghs wrote: »

Seeing some worry over the whole online/typed exam stuff. I have experience watching candidates doing exams as an online exam invigilator. It's very easy to notice that someone is just looking away from the screen in concentration or at the keyboard, compared to someone who is looking at their wall and reading notes on it. You'd be surprised how easy it is to spot someone cheating!
I'd advise to do the exam with honesty and to try to treat it as a traditionally invigilated exam, as I'm sure the proctoring software is more than capable of detecting suspicious behaviour (like reading through notes on a wall/going on your phone etc)

All fine and well but what about for the exams where we can refer to legislation? How would you prove after the fact that you were actually looking at your legislation and not at notes?

shaunadennyham

awsah wrote: »

noone has said that you will fail based on the way your eyes move. Just don't cheat and you will have no problem with it. They have said that this is the only way to do them under the circumstance and if people are not comfortable they can wait until physical sittings are allowed again. I am not happy with some of the conditions of this exam but I am not waiting an indefinite amount of time to sit the exams, as Law hero would say, if you are spending time worrying about things that are out of your control then you are wasting time that should be spent studying.

Yea except that’s like saying oh don’t commit a crime and you don’t have to worry about being arrested and have unconstitutionally obtained evidence and unfair procedures used against you......

Hazel774

Lallers96 wrote: »

Very concerned about this random "score" attributed to my exam recording. Seems too arbitrary to fail someone based off the way their eyes move.

They're not failing people based off eye movements.

It says the online software does not determine if a fraud has occurred. They risk scores are checked by a human and only reviewed if there's a significant concern. And even if there is concern over potential fraud a report will be complied and submitted to Edu Committee and you're given the opportunity to make comments prior to the referral to the education committee.

Just don't try and cheat and then you'll have literally nothing to worry about.

shaunadennyham

Hazel774 wrote: »

They're not failing people based off eye movements.

It says the online software does not determine if a fraud has occurred. They risk scores are checked by a human and only reviewed if there's a significant concern. And even if there is concern over potential fraud a report will be complied and submitted to Edu Committee and you're given the opportunity to make comments prior to the referral to the education committee.

Just don't try and cheat and then you'll have literally nothing to worry about.

Well no actually that’s not correct - if you get flagged for cheating and they refer it to the committee how do you prove that you didn’t cheat? It’s very easy to say oh sure they won’t flag me for cheating because I won’t cheat but what if they do flag you?

awsah

shaunadennyham wrote: »

Yea except that’s like saying oh don’t commit a crime and you don’t have to worry about being arrested and have unconstitutionally obtained evidence and unfair procedures used against you......

ok I am not getting into an argument with someone who is aggressive, I am trying to study for exams. there is noting unconstitutional about what they are doing so you are not comparing like with like, the point of my post is that the LS has basically said if you don't like their methods tough sh1t and wait until the physical ones are on again.

I am not sure why you are getting so aggressive at posts that were not directed to you but this is really not the time or the place for that attitude

Hazel774

shaunadennyham wrote: »

Well no actually that’s not correct - if you get flagged for cheating and they refer it to the committee how do you prove that you didn’t cheat? It’s very easy to say oh sure they won’t flag me for cheating because I won’t cheat but what if they do flag you?

That is literally taken from their email, so it is correct.
If you're that worried about it then hold your legislation up to the camera every time you're going to look at it and then you'll have your proof that that's what you were looking at.

FE1new

Anyone any predictions for Equity?

Reya10

I presume we don't need the usual 3 digit candidate number for the online exams since we logged in with our email and law society ID? Just realised I never got the normal letter in the post, I'm sure it's not just me but can someone put my mind at ease!

Dliodoir2021

I think you've just illustrated shaunadennyham's valid point when you jumped to saying:

awsah wrote: »

ok I am not getting into an argument with someone who is aggressive
....

I am not sure why you are getting so aggressive at posts that were not directed to you but this is really not the time or the place for that attitude

Lawlaw12

Reya10 wrote: »

I presume we don't need the usual 3 digit candidate number for the online exams since we logged in with our email and law society ID? Just realised I never got the normal letter in the post, I'm sure it's not just me but can someone put my mind at ease!

Yea you're right, you don't need it!
If you need an exam number you can use your candidate ID for this sitting

L.E.D

awsah wrote: »

it's under criminal negligence manslaughter

Vehicular Manslaughter – a motorist who causes death as a result of negligent driving can be guilty of manslaughter, provided his negligence meets the standard as set out in Dunleavy.
 S. 4 Road Traffic Act 2011 – makes it a crime to drive a vehicle in a public place without due care and attention, and if such driving causes death or seriously bodily harm, the motorist is liable to a max punishment of 2 years imprisonment and a fine of €10,000.

 O’ Brien J. in AG v Quinlan defined “dangerous driving” as: “driving in a manner in which a reasonably prudent motorist, having regard to all the circumstances, would clearly recognise as involving direct and serious risk of harm to the public.”

Thank you so much! I'm sure I'm looking at it but I just can't find it! Appreciated

Lawlaw12

Dliodoir2021 wrote: »

I think you've just illustrated shaunadennyham's valid point when you jumped to saying:

Please stop trying to cause an argument.

You're not adding anything to the conversation by posting this and it's just going to bring the thread off topic

jus_me

Does anyone know where is still delivering and open to order the constitution - thanks

EmmaO94

Think we could all say this online proctoring situation is imperfect, but it is what it is!

I'm going to play by the rules and have faith in the system, and really hope that everyone else will as well.

We're so close to exams now, let's try and channel our energy into helping each other out instead of negativity!

Lawwww2020

Is Limitation of Actions something that could be left out for Tort? Thanks

shaunadennyham

Lawwww2020 wrote: »

Is Limitation of Actions something that could be left out for Tort? Thanks

It came up in the physical sitting in august so yea could prob leave it out

LawStudent1234

Is there anyone that has a sample answer for S238 and S238(3) substantial transactions in respect of non cash assets (Directors chapter) ? Would be so grateful if you could pm me

HU123

Do we need a candidate ID ? This is my first sitting and I haven't received this in a letter or in any email correspondence.

Where would you usually find your candidate ID?

Aoibhin511

HU123 wrote: »

Do we need a candidate ID ? This is my first sitting and I haven't received this in a letter or in any email correspondence.

Where would you usually find your candidate ID?

It's usually on the letter you get confirming registration and on your results letter, but no one has gotten any of them this year. We didn't need it for the mocks so I'm assuming we don't for the real thing either.

Iso_123

Hey wondering if anyone has any advice on whether the following is sufficient for company law?

-incorporation and sec 31 contracts
-slp
-authority
-directors (duties, sec 238/239, fraudulent/reckless trading)
-restriction
-shares share transfer
-shareholder oppression (212 and foss v harbottle)
-corporate borrowing (i left out when floating charges crystallize essay because it came up in 2020)
-winding up
-realisation corporate assets

StabiloLaw

2020FE1 wrote: »

What are people thinking for company? The notes aren’t sticking for me at the minute. I’m half tempted to drop Restriction and Receivership?

I’ve covered

- SLP
-Directors Duties
-Reckless and fraudulent trading
-S.212 Oppression
-The rule in Foss and Harbottle
-S.819 Restrictions
-Corporate Borrowing
-Winding Up
-Share transfer
-Receivership
- Corporate Authority
- 5 main changes brought in by the 2014 act

Would I be leaving myself short?

I've covered all of the above except Receivership and Corporate Authority- does anyone know if these are essentials or would I be typically ok to leave these out?

channing90

Let’s not kid ourselves they’ll be plenty people trying to cheat as is the norm with home exams. The software will catch those that are too obvious. I heard People doing the College exams during the last lockdown were at it through video calls during exams.

Lallers96

I think I need to clarify the language of my previous post. I should not have said the word "random" about this score that is tied to your eye movements or likelihood of fraud.

I am still concerned that when I am staring down as I type, reading my legislation, and looking off into space to think that the software will determine a high score for me. I have read the entire email last night and I fully understand the process.

At this stage I now have a red flag stuck on my exam, and it will be reviewed by an invigilator (for lack of a better word). At this stage then they have to guess if I am cheating or if I am actually just staring at my keyboard, reading my legislation, and staring off into space the odd time. My worry is what if they decide I am cheating, when I am not? This score is determined by a software with controversies surrounding it and I do not trust that as I am staring down at my keypad that it will not decide "oh he's cheating".

Then the onus shifts onto me to defend myself when I have done nothing wrong. *How can I disprove this?* The answer is I can't because I do not have access to my recording, and I also cannot say anything other than "i was looking at my kepypad".

As someone who has apparently invigilated these online exams before pointed out, it is easy to tell when someone is looking away to think, and if someone is cheating. How so? I stare at my keypad when I have to type furiously and I do not move my eyes away from it unless to check if my spelling is okay. My eyes will be focused solely down and moving left to right, and right to left. How can you confidently say that I am not reading off a page based on those eye movements, rather than what I actually am doing which is merely typing? You can't.