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

lawless11 · 12-03-2019 11:27am

Kyree Bumpy Shrimp wrote: »

Am I right in saying that an accessory is essentially an umbrella term for someone who either aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of an offence?

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)

bigtophat13 · 12-03-2019 11:38am

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.

z6vm1dobfnca3x · 12-03-2019 11:38am

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)

Thanks.

My understanding is that you have S.7 CLA 1997 which captures aiding, abetting counselling & procuring i.e. accessories to the principal offence. (Also covers accessories after the fact e.g. impeding arrest of the principal offender).

You then have the old common law principles of Common Design / Joint Enterprise which capture secondary participants outside the remit of the above act - seems to apply where there are unusual consequences that arise from the joint enterprise e.g. the whole issue of whether Noel Murray could be convicted of capital murder.

Kind of thinking out loud there but hopefully it helps you too.

fe12019 · 12-03-2019 11:40am

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

bigtophat13 · 12-03-2019 11:41am

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 · 12-03-2019 11:42am

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 · 12-03-2019 11:50am

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 · 12-03-2019 12:00pm

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 · 12-03-2019 12:09pm

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 · 12-03-2019 12:37pm

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 · 12-03-2019 1:54pm

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

kasey0123 · 12-03-2019 1:56pm

The weirdest company law paper in years ?

lawless11 · 12-03-2019 1:58pm

kasey0123 wrote: »

The weirdest company law paper in years ?

Worst than the last sitting?

jewels652 · 12-03-2019 2:01pm

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 · 12-03-2019 2:01pm

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 · 12-03-2019 2:10pm

Corporate capacity instead of slp was unexpected

Vegetarian2017 · 12-03-2019 2:17pm

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 · 12-03-2019 2:18pm

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

Vegetarian2017 · 12-03-2019 2:27pm

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 · 12-03-2019 2:29pm

laurar2019 wrote:

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

Ouch.

Gunslinger92 · 12-03-2019 2:30pm

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 · 12-03-2019 2:34pm

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 · 12-03-2019 2:37pm

Gunslinger92 wrote:

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

Enjoy!! Someone put them up thanks!

Vegetarian2017 · 12-03-2019 2:40pm

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 · 12-03-2019 2:40pm

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 · 12-03-2019 2:40pm

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 · 12-03-2019 2:45pm

Anyone have updated grids? Have other material to swap.

Vegetarian2017 · 12-03-2019 2:45pm

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 · 12-03-2019 2:47pm

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 · 12-03-2019 2:51pm

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...:(

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

Comments