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

iamanengine · 04-03-2020 11:43PM

Constitutional

So my final topic cut looks like this

Trial in Due Course, Right to life/abortion, access to courts, bodily integrity, religion, article 45 (though apparently you can just use property rights for this?)

Anyone think that is ok? Don't think I've cut too much but it's hard to know

DUMSURFER · 04-03-2020 11:46PM

Hey everyone, looking for Company notes or exam answers on 'LTDs vs DACs'. I had notes on it before but deleted them by mistake and really don't have time to go back and make new ones at this stage considering how long it's taking me to learn my notes

Any help is greatly appreciated as always! I can send on notes, papers/reports, sample answers etc for most subjects if anyone is short of stuff as well!

rightytighty · 04-03-2020 11:54PM

DUMSURFER wrote: »

Hey everyone, looking for Company notes or exam answers on 'LTDs vs DACs'. I had notes on it before but deleted them by mistake and really don't have time to go back and make new ones at this stage considering how long it's taking me to learn my notes

Any help is greatly appreciated as always! I can send on notes, papers/reports, sample answers etc for most subjects if anyone is short of stuff as well!

I would also really appreciate anything on this!

ihatethesea · 05-03-2020 12:41AM

I so underestimated criminal content- All the different acts are KILLING me!
Is anyone else staying up all hours tonight!?

user115 · 05-03-2020 12:50AM

iamanengine wrote: »

Constitutional

So my final topic cut looks like this

Trial in Due Course, Right to life/abortion, access to courts, bodily integrity, religion, article 45 (though apparently you can just use property rights for this?)

Anyone think that is ok? Don't think I've cut too much but it's hard to know

I'm not doing any of these either, really hope all goes to plan, fingers crossed!

Hamerzan Sickles · 05-03-2020 12:56AM

ihatethesea wrote: »

I so underestimated criminal content- All the different acts are KILLING me!
Is anyone else staying up all hours tonight!?

Yeah, it's horrendous. You're not alone anyway. No idea how I'm going to deal with Constitutional tomorrow as well.

ihatethesea · 05-03-2020 01:02AM

Hamerzan Sickles wrote: »

Yeah, it's horrendous. You're not alone anyway. No idea how I'm going to deal with Constitutional tomorrow as well.

Thats reassuring!
Aw i feel for ya! Get through this one first, try not to think of tomorrow :P !

user115 · 05-03-2020 01:36AM

ihatethesea wrote: »

I so underestimated criminal content- All the different acts are KILLING me!
Is anyone else staying up all hours tonight!?

He is such a sound marker in criminal, you'll be fine. I passed it twice and got script back and he gave marks for quoting legislation like just the Act without section number, once you understand the general idea and get it across that's all he wants. In most my exams I can only remember 1 party to a case and that has never been marked down I don't think once you have the point state it and try your best to apply it to facts esp for criminal.

Hope exam goes well for all sitting criminal, it's really one of the nicer exams so try sleep a bit and don't panic too much

rightytighty · 05-03-2020 08:33AM

For a problem question in criminal, is it essential to state what a specific section of a statute actually says? Or would it be fine to just be like this is a breach of s5 Public Order Act 1994, that is a breach of s6 etc

Wonderstruck · 05-03-2020 09:30AM

rightytighty wrote: »

For a problem question in criminal, is it essential to state what a specific section of a statute actually says? Or would it be fine to just be like this is a breach of s5 Public Order Act 1994, that is a breach of s6 etc

I presume if you can, do, if you don't remember then the legislation is got to be better than nothing

nimcdona · 05-03-2020 10:41AM

In relation to Locus Standi in Constitutional and the case of Construction Industry Federation v Dublin City Council (2005), can anyone tell me if it was held that the unincorporated trade association did have Locus Standi to take the case on behalf of its members or was it held that the challenge should be brought by one of the members themselves? My notes and sample answer say two different things

jewels652 · 05-03-2020 10:47AM

nimcdona wrote: »

In relation to Locus Standi in Constitutional and the case of Construction Industry Federation v Dublin City Council (2005), can anyone tell me if it was held that the unincorporated trade association did have Locus Standi to take the case on behalf of its members or was it held that the challenge should be brought by one of the members themselves? My notes and sample answer say two different things

My notes says they did have standing to bring an action on behalf of the interest of its members.

TCPIP · 05-03-2020 10:47AM

nimcdona wrote: »

In relation to Locus Standi in Constitutional and the case of Construction Industry Federation v Dublin City Council (2005), can anyone tell me if it was held that the unincorporated trade association did have Locus Standi to take the case on behalf of its members or was it held that the challenge should be brought by one of the members themselves? My notes and sample answer say two different things

They did not have standing as they needed to call upon a hypothetical much like in Cahill.

jewels652 wrote: »

My notes says they did have standing to bring an action on behalf of the interest of its members.

Are you citing the HC or SC?

scooby321 · 05-03-2020 11:08AM

Constitutional

Does anyone have a brief summary of Zalewski v Minister for Justice?

JCormac · 05-03-2020 11:12AM

rightytighty wrote: »

Many thanks! You don’t happen to know what they reckon for Company next week too?

No idea - Sorry! Sat Company in a previous sitting. The NB4 Notes & videos are your best bet I'd say

jewels652 · 05-03-2020 11:18AM

TCPIP wrote: »

They did not have standing as they needed to call upon a hypothetical much like in Cahill.

Are you citing the HC or SC?

Oh really ?? It doesn’t say if it is HC or SC.
Thanks for that I’ll be changing it.

ahhhhhFE1s · 05-03-2020 11:20AM

jewels652 wrote: »

Oh really ?? It doesn’t say if it is HC or SC.
Thanks for that I’ll be changing it.

Ya I have they didn't have standing either..

• Construction Industry Federation v Dublin City Council – case involved a trade union and whether it had the standing to bring an action on behalf of its members. McCracken J. – the union failed to demonstrate “good practical reason” for why individually injured parties could not take the action for themselves – the individual P’s were wealthy developers and could have easily taken their own case.

ahhhhhFE1s · 05-03-2020 11:26AM

scooby321 wrote: »

Constitutional

Does anyone have a brief summary of Zalewski v Minister for Justice?

Ya I would love if anyone had a good one as well, read the judgment and know they challenged the Workplace Act, thought the important bit was still entitled to standing even if you have obtained your original remedy- as the dismissal of his complaints had been quashed - but would be open to correction on that

scooby321 · 05-03-2020 11:49AM

Thoughts on purely focusing on this for Constitutional:

1 - Constitutional interpretation
2 - President
3 - Oireachtas
4 - Findings of Unconstitutionality
5 - SoP
6 - Fair Procedures (Natural & Constitutional Justice)
7 - Locus Standi
8 - Trial in Due Course
9 - Liberty
10 - FoE
11 - Family

Anything I'm stupidly leaving out?

mcgreee · 05-03-2020 12:21PM

Equity note predictions?

ahhhhhFE1s · 05-03-2020 12:25PM

scooby321 wrote: »

Thoughts on purely focusing on this for Constitutional:

1 - Constitutional interpretation
2 - President
3 - Oireachtas
4 - Findings of Unconstitutionality
5 - SoP
6 - Fair Procedures (Natural & Constitutional Justice)
7 - Locus Standi
8 - Trial in Due Course
9 - Liberty
10 - FoE
11 - Family

Anything I'm stupidly leaving out?

Maybe property rights but I'd say that's a strong range of topics without it even

lawyersuffolk · 05-03-2020 12:36PM

Can somebody give me summary of Callely case re privilege?? My notes are confusing

Suzannec · 05-03-2020 12:52PM

Covering the following for Constitutional;
1. International relations
2. Proportionality
3. Separation of powers (essay only) non del, economic, social
4. Referendums
5. The president
6. The ag
7. Locus standi
8. Freedom of expression
9. Freedom of assembly
10. Art. 34. 1
11. Family
12. Constitutional Interp.
13. Fair procedure
14. Right to earn a livelihood, property rights, privacy, bodily integrity
Freaking out…..surely this has to be enough to pass…am I leaving out anything important??

TCPIP · 05-03-2020 12:54PM

I'd say you could half that and still have enough.

Suzannec · 05-03-2020 12:56PM

TCPIP wrote: »

I'd say you could half that and still have enough.

I hope so, failed last time as I can never understand his questions, so trying to cover a little of everything and hoping for the best!

iamanengine · 05-03-2020 01:15PM

Suzannec wrote: »

Covering the following for Constitutional;
1. International relations
2. Proportionality
3. Separation of powers (essay only) non del, economic, social
4. Referendums
5. The president
6. The ag
7. Locus standi
8. Freedom of expression
9. Freedom of assembly
10. Art. 34. 1
11. Family
12. Constitutional Interp.
13. Fair procedure
14. Right to earn a livelihood, property rights, privacy, bodily integrity
Freaking out…..surely this has to be enough to pass…am I leaving out anything important??

I'm doing the exact same plus Liberty

JCormac · 05-03-2020 01:32PM

EU

What are people studying for the General principles question?

Seems like it mainly comes up as discuss the general principles & how they help protect individuals from Institutions and MS's or trace the development of the fundamental rights.

For the second one, do you just discuss the charter and development of the fundamental rights? As in, there's no point discussing any of the other general principles?

Banking on this for the second essay question after judicial review but it's such an immense area

nmurphy1441 · 05-03-2020 02:09PM

What did people make of Criminal?

rightytighty · 05-03-2020 02:16PM

nmurphy1441 wrote: »

What did people make of Criminal?

I thought it was ok, I got 5 handy enough. For Liam the drug user in Q5, was it an insanity defence? Intoxication not open as his intention not disputed?

nmurphy1441 · 05-03-2020 02:20PM

rightytighty wrote: »

I thought it was ok, I got 5 handy enough. For Liam the drug user in Q5, was it an insanity defence? Intoxication not open as his intention not disputed?

Thought it was ok too! Was hoping for a provocation or self defence problem question. Wasn’t expecting the 2 sets of advising on 4 different situations. Didn’t attempt question 5 but seemed like an insanity defence based on the mcnaughten rules case I’d imagine!

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

Comments