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

Are people covering detention? Find the judges rules and statutory regulations difficult

CoconutHeadMia wrote: »

Are people covering detention? Find the judges rules and statutory regulations difficult

Yes just learning the 4 periods and the regulations.

Buttonbean123 wrote: »

Is there much to cover under the Criminsl Justice (Sexual Offences) Act 2017 given that it’s relatively new? Do people have much to write on this?

Main ones are:

s.16 Offence to engage or attempt to engage in a sexual act with a child under 15
Not a defence to say they were consenting
However, can say mistakingly thought they were 15
Case PG v. Ireland & Ors 13 year old.
Punishment Life

s.17 A person who engages in a sexual act with a child who is under the age of 17 years shall be guilty of an offence
Consent no defence unless :
If between 15 & 17 & consenting, If not more than 2 years older & not a person in authority & no intimidatory or exploitative relationship. Case - DPP v Tulie (2016) Court of Appeal – was a person in authority at the time he met the 16 year old, but at the time of offences was no longer teaching her, so was no longer a person in authority. NOTE : If this had been after the 2017 Act, he would have been convicted as a person in authority is someone who is or has been responsible for the child’s teaching or education.
Punishment: 7 years
or
15 years if person in authority

s.21 A person who engages in a sexual act with a protected person knowing that that person is a protected person or being reckless as to whether that person is a protected person shall be guilty of an offence
A protected person is one whose capacity to consent is limited
It is an offence to invite, induce, counsel or incite a protected person to engage in a sexual act
Requires DPP consent
Punishment: Life (or up to 14 years if sexual assault) 10 years

s.22 A person in authority who engages in a sexual act with a relevant person shall be guilty of an offence
A relevant person is one who has a mental or intellectual disability or a mental illness ‘which is of such nature as to severely restrict the ability of the person to guard himself or herself against serious exploitation’.
Consent is no defence.
Honest belief that the person wasn’t mentally or intellectually disabled is a defence (but hard to prove)
Requires DPP consent
Punishment : 10 years
(or 5 years if sexual assault)

FE1new wrote: »

Main ones are:

s.16 Offence to engage or attempt to engage in a sexual act with a child under 15
Not a defence to say they were consenting
However, can say mistakingly thought they were 15
Case PG v. Ireland & Ors 13 year old.
Punishment Life

s.17 A person who engages in a sexual act with a child who is under the age of 17 years shall be guilty of an offence
Consent no defence unless :
If between 15 & 17 & consenting, If not more than 2 years older & not a person in authority & no intimidatory or exploitative relationship. Case - DPP v Tulie (2016) Court of Appeal – was a person in authority at the time he met the 16 year old, but at the time of offences was no longer teaching her, so was no longer a person in authority. NOTE : If this had been after the 2017 Act, he would have been convicted as a person in authority is someone who is or has been responsible for the child’s teaching or education.
Punishment: 7 years
or
15 years if person in authority

s.21 A person who engages in a sexual act with a protected person knowing that that person is a protected person or being reckless as to whether that person is a protected person shall be guilty of an offence
A protected person is one whose capacity to consent is limited
It is an offence to invite, induce, counsel or incite a protected person to engage in a sexual act
Requires DPP consent
Punishment: Life (or up to 14 years if sexual assault) 10 years

s.22 A person in authority who engages in a sexual act with a relevant person shall be guilty of an offence
A relevant person is one who has a mental or intellectual disability or a mental illness ‘which is of such nature as to severely restrict the ability of the person to guard himself or herself against serious exploitation’.
Consent is no defence.
Honest belief that the person wasn’t mentally or intellectually disabled is a defence (but hard to prove)
Requires DPP consent
Punishment : 10 years
(or 5 years if sexual assault)

Amazing - thank you so so much ☺️

superS wrote: »

Can I get a copy as well?

Yes, DM me.

stav wrote: »

Can anyone confirm what the legislation checks are like at the beginning of the exam? Are you asked to flick through them and show your workspace?
I'm using a laptop with a webcam attached, so showing my workspace might be hard. I'm stressing that I won't do it effectively and don't want to get flagged for no reason! Thanks a million in advance for your help

Literally nothing happens, its just like the mock exam. I just held up the companies act at the start to show the camera what I was looking at but I just chose to do that. Nothing tells you to show your environment/legislation!

Iso_123 wrote: »

property question on co ownership

I was wondering if someone could help me out with a question on severance of a joint tenancy because i've completely confused myself.. Where one joint tenant acquires another one of the joint tenants interest (lets say there were 3 joint tenants to begin with but now that one has acquired another's interest there are only 2 left) - does this sever the joint tenancy and now the remaining 2 are tenants in common? or are they still joint tenants?

I'm confused because my manual seems to contradict itself or I might just be reading it wrong..

In that situation where you have 3 co-owners and one acquires an extra interest, that person is a TIC in relation to the other 2, but the other two still have are still JT to each other. Same goes if person 1 sell to someone else, the new buyer is a TIC but the others remain JT in relation to each other.

The criminal exam is available until 3 pm, does that mean we can start later than 10am?? Was this how they did it yesterday?

orlaghs wrote: »

I think the remaining JT become TIC because the unity of interest is destroyed! That's my understanding of it anyways

This is what I thought but was second guessing myself! thanks so much

Would anyone possibly have an up to date Equity grid they could send me?

I found it very hard to judge because of the scroll function and that it's not like a normal word document! I also found not being able to see the answers in front of me and flicking between them hard to judge! Have you showed your workspace or are we meant to I cleared it out but thought someone might drop in and ask but no?

bluerthanu wrote: »

I think that would only apply to an inter vivos alienation to a third party or if there were more than 3 tenants? If we’re going off of the original posters question, which, as I understand it, was 3 original JT’s but one of the JT’s acquires a further interest, then only two co-owners remain? My understanding is that you would then have a severance of TIC of 66% to the acquiring interest co-owner, and 33% to the remaining JT now TIC.

Thank you so much for this this is what I was trying to ask! I thought this was the case that where there were originally 3 JT's and one acquires a further interest this would act to sever the JT and the remaining 2 would now be TIC with each other. that's great thanks

Also does anyone have the pass rates for subjects? I have one that is quite outdated and only goes as far as 2017

For Constitutional Law, is each Problem Question usually centred around one particular topic? Or does he ask several topics in one problem question.