awsah wrote: » This is literally all my notes on pblic nuisance, I can't see it coming up as a full PQ but would be handy to know for part of an essay or part of PQ Public Nuisance Civil actions for public nuisance are taken by the Attorney General. A private action for a public nuisance can be taken where the Plaintiff suffered particular or special damage beyond that suffered by other members of the public. Boyd V Great Northern Railway : The Plaintiff must have suffered “some appreciable damage peculiar to himself beyond that suffered by other members of the public” Smith v Wilson : “Everyone who individually sustains particular injury can apply for damages or an injunction.”
Lallers96 wrote: » Very concerned about this random "score" attributed to my exam recording. Seems too arbitrary to fail someone based off the way their eyes move.
L.E.D wrote: » Hi, does anyone have notes on vehicular manslaughter? or can you tell me where is in the city college manual? I've checked and checked and can't find it, think my brain is not functioning lol
orlaghs wrote: » Seeing some worry over the whole online/typed exam stuff. I have experience watching candidates doing exams as an online exam invigilator. It's very easy to notice that someone is just looking away from the screen in concentration or at the keyboard, compared to someone who is looking at their wall and reading notes on it. You'd be surprised how easy it is to spot someone cheating! I'd advise to do the exam with honesty and to try to treat it as a traditionally invigilated exam, as I'm sure the proctoring software is more than capable of detecting suspicious behaviour (like reading through notes on a wall/going on your phone etc)
awsah wrote: » noone has said that you will fail based on the way your eyes move. Just don't cheat and you will have no problem with it. They have said that this is the only way to do them under the circumstance and if people are not comfortable they can wait until physical sittings are allowed again. I am not happy with some of the conditions of this exam but I am not waiting an indefinite amount of time to sit the exams, as Law hero would say, if you are spending time worrying about things that are out of your control then you are wasting time that should be spent studying.
Hazel774 wrote: » They're not failing people based off eye movements. It says the online software does not determine if a fraud has occurred. They risk scores are checked by a human and only reviewed if there's a significant concern. And even if there is concern over potential fraud a report will be complied and submitted to Edu Committee and you're given the opportunity to make comments prior to the referral to the education committee. Just don't try and cheat and then you'll have literally nothing to worry about.
shaunadennyham wrote: » Yea except that’s like saying oh don’t commit a crime and you don’t have to worry about being arrested and have unconstitutionally obtained evidence and unfair procedures used against you......
shaunadennyham wrote: » Well no actually that’s not correct - if you get flagged for cheating and they refer it to the committee how do you prove that you didn’t cheat? It’s very easy to say oh sure they won’t flag me for cheating because I won’t cheat but what if they do flag you?
awsah wrote: » ok I am not getting into an argument with someone who is aggressive .... I am not sure why you are getting so aggressive at posts that were not directed to you but this is really not the time or the place for that attitude
Reya10 wrote: » I presume we don't need the usual 3 digit candidate number for the online exams since we logged in with our email and law society ID? Just realised I never got the normal letter in the post, I'm sure it's not just me but can someone put my mind at ease!
awsah wrote: » it's under criminal negligence manslaughter Vehicular Manslaughter – a motorist who causes death as a result of negligent driving can be guilty of manslaughter, provided his negligence meets the standard as set out in Dunleavy. S. 4 Road Traffic Act 2011 – makes it a crime to drive a vehicle in a public place without due care and attention, and if such driving causes death or seriously bodily harm, the motorist is liable to a max punishment of 2 years imprisonment and a fine of €10,000. O’ Brien J. in AG v Quinlan defined “dangerous driving” as: “driving in a manner in which a reasonably prudent motorist, having regard to all the circumstances, would clearly recognise as involving direct and serious risk of harm to the public.”
Dliodoir2021 wrote: » I think you've just illustrated shaunadennyham's valid point when you jumped to saying:
Lawwww2020 wrote: » Is Limitation of Actions something that could be left out for Tort? Thanks
HU123 wrote: » Do we need a candidate ID ? This is my first sitting and I haven't received this in a letter or in any email correspondence. Where would you usually find your candidate ID?
2020FE1 wrote: » What are people thinking for company? The notes aren’t sticking for me at the minute. I’m half tempted to drop Restriction and Receivership? I’ve covered - SLP -Directors Duties -Reckless and fraudulent trading -S.212 Oppression -The rule in Foss and Harbottle -S.819 Restrictions -Corporate Borrowing -Winding Up -Share transfer -Receivership - Corporate Authority - 5 main changes brought in by the 2014 act Would I be leaving myself short?
