Hamerzan Sickles wrote: » CONSTITUTIONAL: Can someone explain to me what the Supreme Court held in Zalewski in late 2020 in relation to the exercise of limited judicial power? Just realised I don't have it in my notes. Thanks!
bluerthanu wrote: » Unless this is in relation to a case of the same name not on courts.ie, the Supreme Court decision of that name (Zalewski v Adjudication Officer (WRC) [2019] IESC 17) was handed down two years ago. The SC judgment only determined that the appellant had locus standi to challenge the Work Place Relations Act and Unfair Dismissals Act. Then, last year, the High Court ([2020] IEHC 178) held that, although the powers exercised by adjudication officers and the Labour Court—for resolving employment disputes under the WRC—resemble many of the characteristics of the administration of justice under Article 34, it lacks the crucial element of the decision maker being able to enforce its decisions (characteristic four of Bord na gCon). Thus, the claim failed on that limb. That’s as much as I know!
Lawlawblahblah wrote: » Anyone who has sat the November 2020 exams were you asked to show your room before the exam started? Did you have to show a copy of your unmarked constitution/ legislation? Thanks!!!
flepetch wrote: » we weren't asked to or even prompted to do so. I just held up the legislation at the start of my exam and also throughout (whenever i remembered to) to show what i was looking at! there's nobody speaking to you so its not invigilated but they use a software that can detect suspicious behaviour, whatever that might be i.e. going to the bathroom often, staring in the same direction repeatedly during the exam. i had been very paranoid about staring out my window thinking that the system might have flagged it, and i was never told it did because nothing of the sort was communicated to me. then again i did fail that paper so who knows lol
Legalapples wrote: » From my understanding it's been heard by the SC but they have yet to make a decision on it
Lawlawblahblah wrote: » Hard to know what they pick up on!! And easy to be paranoid lol I wonder do they not tell people the reason they’ve failed is because they think they’re cheating?
nicolesd wrote: » can anyone explain to me the test JC set out re unconstitutionally obtained evidence please?
tommyq94 wrote: » General Principles is a bit easier/shorter! I really would do both if I were you, as they are both likely to come up, and they are always asked in the same essay format. I can send you my notes on them both if you want.
Creg12 wrote: » what do you think is best to cover? I have covered institutions general principals and bit on fundamental rights direct effect & MS liability Judicial Review FMOG I don't think I have enough ? I will try cover another topic, any advice really appreciated, would it take long to do workers?
lsheehaneire wrote: » Better Examinations Under upcoming exams is anybody's exam coming up ? I am sitting constitution Wednesday.
lsheehaneire wrote: » Thanks...5 more sleeps is close enough !
Fe1user5555 wrote: » Hey guys ! Is anyone leaving out any part of due course of law or are people doing all of it? Don’t think I’ll have time to do all so if anyone had any pointers that would be great
FE1Nov20 wrote: » The only parts I plan on skimming are right to silence and unconstitutionally obtained evidence
Fe1user5555 wrote: » And you’re not looking at the rest? Might follow same approach!
Hamerzan Sickles wrote: » Re Constitutional: how does anyone pass this exam without going completely insane or sinking into the depths of despair?
DavidX90 wrote: » I just cannot understand how they expect people to MEMORISE this quantity of BS. I have a busy job and literally don't have time for this.
