Molly347 wrote: » to everyone freaking out, if this is yer first time sitting these, please just keep yer heads. I know its easier said than done but I sat 4 for the first time in October and was in yer exact position and couldn't stop crying in the run up to it because i was so stressed. I'm definitely calmer now with 4 under my belt but I promise that half the anxiety is just the fear of the unknown and the build up to them. Someone said to me before my first sitting, think of every single trainee you know - they all passed these at some point, so why can't you?
Law1997 wrote: » So so true. Roll on 2 weeks time when we can sleep and Netflix without guilt! Good luck
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?
iamanengine wrote: » Well...time to start dramatically cutting topics for Constitutional I think!
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!
Law000 wrote: » In the process of cutting myself...does Education itself appear much !? Thinking of cutting education right to life equality and interpretation
ahhhhhFE1s wrote: » Have very little on education, cut right to life, equality and freedom of religion
iamanengine wrote: » How are people approaching right to liberty? Seems really broad Cutting Privacy, up last two sittings
LJones18 wrote: » Hasn't been up for the last 2 years, so chance it may come up. Question on changes from Children's Rights Ref / Insertion of Art 42A perhaps?
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.
ahona wrote: » Can I afford to leave out - Participation/Complicity - Inchoate Offence?
law_struggles wrote: » Criminal Does anyone know the main sections from the 2017 Act we should have for the exam? Thank you
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!
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!
