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

Law1997 wrote: »

So so true. Roll on 2 weeks time when we can sleep and Netflix without guilt! Good luck

Cant wait for the guilt free tv!! Best of luck to you too

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

Criminal

Regarding the test for provocation, to defeat a defence of provocation, does the prosecution need to prove either or both of the tests set in MacEoin?

No, Boyle and Mullane confirmed afterwards that it's a strictly subjective test. Although Davis followed and held the accused did not have a defence of provocation because there was no objective act of provocation (accused's girlfriend wouldn't account for where she had been).
The CoA said obiter that this casts a shadow of doubt onto the test but for now it's considered to be subjective.

That's my understanding anyway!

iamanengine wrote: »

Well...time to start dramatically cutting topics for Constitutional I think!

yep few topics have been binned already today!

alice.n wrote: »

No, Boyle and Mullane confirmed afterwards that it's a strictly subjective test. Although Davis followed and held the accused did not have a defence of provocation because there was no objective act of provocation (accused's girlfriend wouldn't account for where she had been).
The CoA said obiter that this casts a shadow of doubt onto the test but for now it's considered to be subjective.

That's my understanding anyway!

My page refreshed and deleted everything so no point retyping this all arghhhh but I will quote the LRC

"Thus two
plausible interpretations of the MacEoin test are possible; it can be
seen as:
(i) a partly subjective/partly objective test where both
subjectivity and proportionality are given equal
weight; or
(ii) a purely subjective test which only takes the
proportionality of the accused’s reaction into
consideration when weighing up the overall
evidence."

So really is the test (i) or (ii)? It's (ii) (because of the reasons the learned poster above me has said). All you have to do is get your guy in the witness box to say I "i snapped i couldnt take that crowbanger no longer!!" and the crazier your story (disproportionate) the less likely the jury are going to buy what he says.

Law000 wrote: »

In the process of cutting myself...does Education itself appear much !? Thinking of cutting education right to life equality and interpretation

Have very little on education, cut right to life, equality and freedom of religion

How are people approaching right to liberty? Seems really broad

Cutting Privacy, up last two sittings

iamanengine wrote: »

How are people approaching right to liberty? Seems really broad

Cutting Privacy, up last two sittings

It has come up every sitting either by FOE or privacy since 2015. He writes alot about privacy and media law, I'm covering it, seems like a topic that will appear especially with foe, I'd do it if you can like just read over your notes.

You would be so surprised that a quick read over does stay in your head. I remember I cut defamation last sitting after doing notes weeks before on it, did not revise my notes, literally threw my eye over it night before and it was on paper I got a 12 for a very basic answer that was all over the place. It's worth even briefly going over it

Hamerzan Sickles wrote: »

Re Criminal, if secondary participation comes up, are you supposed to discuss the doctrine of common design also? And how do you differentiate between them? From my notes it seems really arbitrary, like there's no clear distinction as to why the court would choose one charge or another.

I would discuss everything!!!! Even throw in conspiracy too.

Secondary participation refers to aids, abets, counsels or procures a crime. Like a getaway driver could be guilty of murder as an accomplice because he aided the perpetrators escape.

Common design is slightly different in that a group come to an agreement to commit a crime. Everyone who agrees to this and it happens is guilty of that crime through common design. Don’t forget though that it’s what is tactically agreed, if someone goes beyond what was agreed, the others would not be guilty. Let’s say they agree to commit assault and the assault happens but a person in the group ends up stabbing the victim and killing him. Only he would be guilty of murder as he went beyond what was agreed.

That’s what I make it to be anyway!

Criminal predictions...?!

On the NB notes, there are roughly three cases that outline the difficulty caused by the subjective test for provocation. Could anyone who knows briefly summarise what they say? I only have MacEoin, Kelly, and Mullane in my notes! Would be so grateful.

Criminal

Help! Anyone has anything on the Domestic Violence Act 2018?
Tia

Can I afford to leave out
- Participation/Complicity
- Inchoate Offence?

ahona wrote: »

Can I afford to leave out
- Participation/Complicity
- Inchoate Offence?

I did criminal last sitting- both came up twice! I found it handy to have a couple of case names to throw in to a problem question just to get an extra mark here or there. I didn't even learn the topic- just a few case names and knew where to put them in.

supercreative wrote: »

As far as I know:

-sections 3-8 child-specific offenses
-section 16 intercourse with a child under 15
-section 17 intercourse with a child under 17
-section 21 sexual contact with a protected person
-section 48 consent

But there may be more, that's what I have anyway!

Just know these and know what a person in authority and relevant person is too!!!

LJones18 wrote: »

CRIMINAL

For Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person, Does DPP v Brown (2018) overruling Minister for Justice v Dolny mean that Consent is no longer a defence for any kind of Assault?

For example would it change how a case like R v Aitken (1992) would have been decided if today?

Any help on the area of consent and assault would be great!

My understanding is that consent is a defence for s2 and 3 assault but not s4.