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

Constitutional

Q2 on the Oct 2019 paper about Blanaid and her bank account being frozen.. Examiner report seems to say it's about right to earn a livelihood and Art 45? I am extremely confused, does anyone have a sample answer or even just a brief summary of how that conclusion is reached??

iamanengine wrote: »

Yeah I would have thought it is Property rights rather than right to livelihood. Article 43 and Article 40.3.2

Also Cassidy v Commissioner of An Garda Siochana - freezing orders

Thanks a mill think I may have misinterpreted the report.. Have tried to attach image of the report.. Same question comes up in Oct 2017

His report is correct. As he says 'many candidates focused solely on the right to earn a livelihood which unnecessarily limited their capacity...". In essence he says that a lot of people screwed themselves by attaching to something irrelevant.

His reports should be challenged for vagueness themselves...

Law000 wrote: »

Have you any info on that Cassidy case? I’ve the full judgment but far too much to get through in it? Cheers

Don't have much on it

Cassidy v Commissioner of An Garda Siochana - The issue of a freezing order appears to constitute the administration of justice. Freezing order obtained under S.17 Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010. The order was made by a DC Judge who had heard the application in camera. The making of the order was challenged on the basis that because the freezing order amounted to the administration of justice it ought to have been done in public. The HC agreed noting the significant restriction placed on the use of funds and the need to weigh evidence in order to make the determination.

Constitutional - Referendums

On McKenna V An Taoiseach 1995 no2 the SC declared that the spending by the executive was subject to court jurisdiction and did find that it was unconstitutional because it was in disregard of is it other provisions of the Constit? Also if it is deemed unconstit then is it just a declaration or are people entitled to damages? From my reading it seems it is just a declaration and then a separate case has to be taken to see the extent of how much those unconstit actions of spending actually interfered with the vote but that is a super high bar and the courts have never said such disregard re spending has ever had that much of a effect that it swung the vote?

I feel like I am missing something or it that it?

Looks like Equity has the lowest pass rate most sittings, anyone have any insight into why this might be? Particularly hard marker? Or do people just find it difficult?

I don't have access to any of the examiner reports so not sure what the story is

48% pass rate for the October 17 sitting seems mad

user115 wrote: »

Ya I was asking this a while ago, made me very worried before I started study for it. Like the exam is not as unpredictable as others and topics seems straight forward. Really wonder where people go wrong or if examiner just really harsh, I feel alright about equity like I understand it okay and feel I have enough topics covered, maybe could do one more but happy enough with it.

What do others think?

Yeah same as, might be the only exam I am comfortable with atm lol

I haven’t passed it yet, very desperate too. I feel she’s a harsh marker. Like you think you passed and don’t

mod
Pls do not criticise examiners here

ahhhhhFE1s wrote: »

I passed it last sitting first time and not sure if there is any special formula, definitely a harder marker than other exams.. All I can think is have a look at some of the smaller topics like quisteclose and dmc, a wide range covered makes it an easier exam, she mentions a few things over again in her reports that people consistently get wrong, some off the top of my head- recent cases for contracts for specific performance Ahmed v HSE i believe, new definitions for charitable trusts in 2009 Act and how the cy pres doctrine comes into effect.. Not sure if that is any help!!

Does the 2009 Act introduce new definitions? I thought the definitions were the same as under the Comm for Income Tax V Pemsel and that all the previous case law remained relevant. Ya from reports it seems equity is a case of really having to answer exactly what is asked.

In the video with NBN they say also to know purpose trusts with charitable and cypres, I must go back and look at that, haven't a clue about purpose trusts.

Locus Standi is a cert for this constitutional exam lads, I can feel it!

user115 wrote: »

My heart would sink if it didn't appear.

I think liberty is also very topical there was a good few cases in 2019 alone on the topic, Finnegan, AB V St Lomans, AM V HSE and AC V UCH.....like it has to be up.

I think Constit could be okay but then again you never know til your in there. I would think constit inter, locus standi, AG/President, liberty and/or fair procedures and then you have privacy, property and SOP that are always up I'm kinda bit slow to do more but very worried I'll regret it if I don't...

Are you thinking Con interp and AG/President to both come up?

Law000 wrote: »

Is fair procedures the same as trial in due course of law!?

No, they're separate topics. 2 main principles are audi alterem partem and nemo iudex causa sua, sometimes it's called natural justice in the manuals.

Key case is Shatter v Guerin, also P v Minister for Justice