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

Can someone tell me what came up in March for constitutional? And if ye have any of the predictions! Finding it hard to narrow down

iamanengine wrote: »

Covering for Criminal:

Classifications
AR/MR
Sexual Offences
Homicide
Non-Fatal Offences
Offences against Property
Defences
Bail/Arrest/Detention
Presumption of Innocence/Right to Silence/Courts

Thoughts? Is it enough?

I am covering the same as you except for the courts. There are so o many Acts and sections to remember for criminal, feeling frustrated

@gunslinger
Thanks a mill. I was going to leave ultra out mmm not sure. Need to chop either way. I have a feeling it is going to be a brutal paper ;/

Also duty of company to act in interest of company?

Gunslinger92 wrote:

Neither came up last sitting! I don't have the paper but I took it down when someone posted after the exam last sitting:

Gunslinger92 wrote:

- duty of company to act in interests of company (?) - duties of receiver - ostensible authority; turquands case - liability of directors for reckless and fraudulent trading and failure to keep proper books - restriction orders - distributions - foss v harbottle - retention of title clauses; charges over book debts

Gunslinger92 wrote:

Hope that helps

Does he tend to have a pattern to not repeat or should we still study for example ostensible? I haven't really looked at grids

HELPPP
Can someone please explain the "Causal link" to me in Constitutional - Unconstitutionally obtained evidence? I feel i must have missed this entirely and now i'm freaking out. SOS

Hey Legal23 definitely sit criminal, sounds like you have the major work done and just a bit overwhelmed with the amount you need to actually keep in your head. I did the exams twice before i got the first 3 and I got criminal both times. He is a very fair marker. I think focus on the substantive offences MS, murder, NFOAP, know all sexual offences very well and know a bit about all the defenses you will pass. Both times I did a question on property offences and literally named the theft and fraud act 2001 and was given marks for it. You'll be grand, it's very hard but try not to let the stress get to you, yes it is an unreal amount of information to hold in your head esp cause your doing other exams but it is amazing what you remember in the exam. When you are responding to questions set out how you understand the law, the issue, then apply that to the question and it will show you know your stuff. Try your best to get a good sleep, makes all the difference when you are trying to understand and learn things off. Really hoping they all go very well for you

Legal23 wrote: »

I'm going for the magic three for the 3rd time and I'm losing heart. I've signed up for 4 this time round with criminal being my additional subject. I've got condensed notes done but I find I'm rewriting all my notes again in the learning process. Tbh, I've mostly focused on my past exams so I've left criminal to the end. I'm starting to panic looking at the topics today and feel like I'm getting nowhere. I'm just wondering from your experience would I be better off not sitting criminal and just focus on getting my three, spending the next few days being fully prepared for my 3 exams or do I spend the next day and a half cramming to get criminal into my head... Is it possible to pass if I feel like nothing is going in at this point???

Legal23 wrote:

Oh thank you so much, I think I am just so overwhelmed at this stage... The amount of statutes and cases.. The doubt creeps in that I don't know anything... Although its not great knowing you haven't passed, it's reassuring to know others have been in the same situation and got the magic three. I'm going to focus abit tonight on defences and then focus all day tomorrow on the rest and just give it a go on Wednesday. Thanks again I really appreciate it.

Definitely go for it, don't worry so much once you can talk like u understand the concepts. Referring and applying the caselaw / limbs of a test. I named a few statutes wrong etc in mine. i nearly bottled for last exam as wasn't sure re criminal and got the magic 3.

After such a rough Tort paper I reckon Criminal is gunna be a beaut

Gunslinger92 wrote: »

Anyone else tabbing the shït out of their companies act on anything at all that might be useful in the exam? :pac:

I did this for last set and it worked beautifully, used it as a total crutch for Summary Approval Procedure and the transfer of shares and wrote a shockingly good answer considering how uncomfortable with it I was!

iamanengine wrote: »

Classification of Offences incoming I can feel it!

Lol

Wouldn't we all wish for that now haha

I believe it can happen

For co-ownership, are the partition acts gone since the LCLRA? I think they are but making sure.

bigtophat13 wrote: »

For co-ownership, are the partition acts gone since the LCLRA? I think they are but making sure.

Yep they're gone, think its section 31 of LCLRA

nimcdona wrote: »

Yep they're gone, think its section 31 of LCLRA

You're dead right, went looking at Wylie there. I always find it so conceited where they're like " the land reform commission thought xyz" which just means "I thought"

bigtophat13 wrote: »

I actually haven't prepped for that yet and likely won't get time even though I expect it!

If you have the notes done you could genuinely learn enough for an answer with a good hours worth of study, less even.

iamanengine wrote: »

If you have the notes done you could genuinely learn enough for an answer with a good hours worth of study, less even.

My only understanding of the way to answer that is his sample answer and that's quite lengthy

Scratch that, found it in my manual and it's 4 pages there! He can't expect his level!

laurar2019 wrote: »

what are 5 reforms of the act?? i can only think of 2

Not doing company but I know Summary Approval Procedure, Codification and expansion of directors duties are 2 of them. Something to do with the punishment of directors too I think!

laurar2019 wrote: »

what are 5 reforms of the act?? i can only think of 2

bigtophat13 wrote: »

Not doing company but I know Summary Approval Procedure, Codification and expansion of directors duties are 2 of them. Something to do with the punishment of directors too I think!

I was literally just thinking the same thing.

Think the most significant reform from the previous regime is that the model LTD company won't have a defined objects clause.

Also majority written resolutions are new to the act I think

Is anyone else absolutely dying or is that just me?!

lawless11 wrote: »

Yep, also you have the accessory after the act S.7 CLA 1997.


(Accessory liability and Common Design/Joint Enteprise always confuse me as to which one is which as well)

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.

Has anyone got an up to date constitutional law grid they could send on or even just last October's paper?

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?

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