nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

FE1 Exam Thread (Read 1st post!) No trading

Tom Young

This is the new FE1 Exam Thread

This is a link to the old one: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055143169

This is a link to the next one: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056907164

Sorry, I'm aware we are in the throws of FE1 season, but due to a server issue, a new thread was required. Old chats and posts below - Thanks!

Mod warning in post #1205: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88514663&postcount=1205

Mod warning in post #2555: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91819622&postcount=2555

Mod warning in post #2593: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92025688&postcount=2593

Moderator: The above warnings mean it is not ok to buy, sell or swap (trade) any exam materials in this thread. Exam grids are the only exception. You may request and exchange exam grids but at no point will money be allowed to change hands for them.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Creg12

chris1231 wrote: »

I've heard of other exams that ask you to use a mirror to show computer prior to exam.. Did this happen in the October fe1s?

All the mirrors I have are attached to walls so might be a problemo

I don't get what you mean?

2020FE1

FEONE wrote: »

Hi, I was thinking of going into constitutional with the following;
Equality
Family
Liberty
Seperation of Powers
Interpretation
AG
Mootness/Locus Standi
Personal Rights
Religion
Property

Going to have a brief knowledge of expression with assembly and association and due course also. Am I missing anything substantial? Really trying to leave out Oireachtas also just don't like that topic.

I’ve covered more of less the same,plus the Oireachtas, Declarations of unconstitutionality/deferred declarations , The President and Referenda. I’m not sure about things after today though. I need to cover mootness now and I’m struggling as it is. So may well drop one or two of the above,

ktvaljean

2020FE1 wrote: »

I’ve covered more of less the same,plus the Oireachtas, Declarations of unconstitutionality/deferred declarations , The President and Referenda. I’m not sure about things after today though. I need to cover mootness now and I’m struggling as it is. So may well drop one or two of the above,

What case is relevant to mootness form today looking at slides I can’t figure it out.

Thanks

lsheehaneire

MC v Clinical Director of CMH-mootness

examsfe12021

lsheehaneire wrote: »

MC v Clinical Director of CMH-mootness

can anyone provide a summary for this case? finding it difficult to condense

Katniss1998

Hey, I am preparing the following for EU
Direct effect and MS liability
Institutions
Judicial Review
Competition Law
General Principles.

Could I get away with only doing FMOG or FMOW not both? I feel like there is too much work in FMOW. Or does anyone know how to narrow down the content for FMOW/Citizenship

NewFe1

Has anyone got a summary of the Friends of the Irish Environment v Government case?

Creg12

Katniss1998 wrote: »

Hey, I am preparing the following for EU
Direct effect and MS liability
Institutions
Judicial Review
General Principles.

Could I get away with only doing FMOG or FMOW not both? I feel like there is too much work in FMOW. Or does anyone know how to narrow down the content for FMOW/Citizenship

I am doing the following

Direct effect and MS liability
Judicial Review
Competition Law
General Principles
FMOG are my main 4 and then

Institutions (as best i can, its big & complex i find)
Competition Law (area that's tipped only)

like u I found workers area massive

DUMSURFER

If anyone who did the seminar took a screen recording or voice recording of it, could they message me?

I took a screen recording but now that I play it back, it only recorded my screen without any audio

NewFe1

Having that constitutional lecture so close to the exam has really thrown me. Don't know any of those cases.

Katniss1998

Creg12 wrote: »

I am doing the following

Direct effect and MS liability
Judicial Review
Competition Law
General Principles
FMOG are my main 4 and then

Institutions (as best i can, its big & complex i find)
Competition Law (area that's tipped only)

like u I found workers area massive

Thanks so much, I might cover FMOG and see how I am feeling!

Lawlz

Hi guys are all your exams showing as upcoming exams on better examinations?

Just 2 of my 4 are.

Cheers

fe1person

Criminal

In addition to
Offences against the person
Offences against the property
Defences

What else should I be focusing on?

FE1Hopefully1

Lawlz wrote: »

Hi guys are all your exams showing as upcoming exams on better examinations?

Just 2 of my 4 are.

Cheers

just one of mine is the one that is this week.

Lawlz

FE1Hopefully1 wrote: »

just one of mine is the one that is this week.

Thanks! I’ve one on Thursday that isn’t showing.

Lallers96

Good luck to everyone sitting Criminal Law tomorrow!

This will (hopefully) be my last sitting of these exams if I can manage to plough through 5 at once. Fingers crossed for us all that it's a kind paper tomorrow morning.

Lallers96

Lawlz wrote: »

Hi guys are all your exams showing as upcoming exams on better examinations?

Just 2 of my 4 are.

Cheers

Just Criminal and Constitutional for me, and I'm sitting 4 in a row and then EU the following week. I suppose they'll be added tomorrow or the day after!

ejm47

lsheehaneire wrote: »

MC v Clinical Director of CMH-mootness

Found the webinar discussion of this case kinda confusing and all over the place now gotta figure it out along with another 50% of the course lol

bigchungus

Good luck to you too! Fingers crossed we're all happy come 1:30 pm tomorrow

lsheehaneire

NewFe1 wrote: »

Having that constitutional lecture so close to the exam has really thrown me. Don't know any of those cases.

Me too but just bare in mind the entire paper can’t be based on 2020 case law , it’s just not realistic. I plan on sticking to my notes and if there are any additional cases mentioned today then I will refer to them. None of the cases today had any huge impact on constitutional law from what I could gather....

FE1student2890

Anyone have any last minute advice for criminal law lol?

NewFe1

lsheehaneire wrote: »

Me too but just bare in mind the entire paper can’t be based on 2020 case law , it’s just not realistic. I plan on sticking to my notes and if there are any additional cases mentioned today then I will refer to them. None of the cases today had any huge impact on constitutional law from what I could gather....

I'm just worried that there will be an entire question on the friends of the irish environment case. Hoping it appears as part of the case note question so I can avoid it.

Legalapples

FE1student2890 wrote: »

Anyone have any last minute advice for criminal law lol?

Just from recollection just make sure you’re advising the right person ... Might seem like an obvious thing but when I sat the exam one of the problem questions was shaped as though I was to advise the person who committed the crime but at the end of the question it wanted you to advise the DPP

awsah

ejm47 wrote: »

Found the webinar discussion of this case kinda confusing and all over the place now gotta figure it out along with another 50% of the course lol

i dont know will it come up on its own, perhaps part of a question. she was in the CMH after murdering her son and attempting to murder her daughter. there was a change in the law (this is the 9pm condensed version - something to do wiht the criminal insanity act and that she was found not guilty by reason of insantiy the court had no right to hold her any longer - was my take from it anyway) so this case involved some issue as the clinical director was supposed to help her wiht housing or something like that but didnt

mootness
the case was moot as by the time it came around the issue had been resolved, however the courts stated that as she was claiming damages for a breach of her constitutional rights as an action the case was not deemed to be moot
however, it went on to say that damages are only available when there is no recourse available at common law, here there was a common law action for misfeasance in public office but for that you need to show a strong probability of male fides on the part of the defendant and he had not acted mal fides so the claim failed. there was reference that she could have taken this to the ECHR but this was not done (not sure why) so it has not been decided and never will be unless someone else brings an case

lsheehaneire

awsah wrote: »

i dont know will it come up on its own, perhaps part of a question. she was in the CMH after murdering her son and attempting to murder her daughter. there was a change in the law (this is the 9pm condensed version - something to do wiht the criminal insanity act and that she was found not guilty by reason of insantiy the court had no right to hold her any longer - was my take from it anyway) so this case involved some issue as the clinical director was supposed to help her wiht housing or something like that but didnt

mootness
the case was moot as by the time it came around the issue had been resolved, however the courts stated that as she was claiming damages for a breach of her constitutional rights as an action the case was not deemed to be moot
however, it went on to say that damages are only available when there is no recourse available at common law, here there was a common law action for misfeasance in public office but for that you need to show a strong probability of male fides on the part of the defendant and he had not acted mal fides so the claim failed. there was reference that she could have taken this to the ECHR but this was not done (not sure why) so it has not been decided and never will be unless someone else brings an case

I think the parties “compromised “ - on an amount so there was no need for her to go down ECHR route.

LawNerd2020

Does anybody have any way to synopsise this case when it comes to the Family and Article 41. I don't really get the point of it/see it's significance. I don't even know where I could slot it into my notes on Family. Today's seminar really through me!! Panicking at this point!!

I wonder could Gorry come up as an essay to ask about the family and Article 41 in some way.

awsah

lsheehaneire wrote: »

I think the parties “compromised “ - on an amount so there was no need for her to go down ECHR route.

yes i thought this but didn't know for definite, thanks!

lsheehaneire

NewFe1 wrote: »

I'm just worried that there will be an entire question on the friends of the irish environment case. Hoping it appears as part of the case note question so I can avoid it.

If it does appear as an essay type question then it will have to focus on a particular area whether it’s non justiciability, standing or unenumerated rights so if you have case law in these areas and a brief understanding on the Friends of the Environment case you should be ok ..

awsah

LawNerd2020 wrote: »

Does anybody have any way to synopsise this case when it comes to the Family and Article 41. I don't really get the point of it/see it's significance. I don't even know where I could slot it into my notes on Family. Today's seminar really through me!! Panicking at this point!!

I wonder could Gorry come up as an essay to ask about the family and Article 41 in some way.

simple terms - both the same/similar cases/circumstances. Minsiter tried to deport Nigerian married to irish citizen. appealed on family rights, Minsiter refused to quash deportation order. SC ruled that the Minsiter erred and did not consider the family strong enough

He does, however, have to identify, consider and
properly weigh the couple’s constitutional rights and their Convention rights against the
important countervailing interests on the State side when conducting the balancing exercise
required of him. What is required is a case-by-case analysis – the outcome will hinge on the
particular facts and circumstances of a given case. Where the Minister erred in the decisions
challenged in these proceedings is that he did not elevate the constitutional rights of the
Applicants to the position that he should have. They are the starting point for the balancing
exercise required and they must be afforded considerable weight. This is not to say that, after
conducting the evaluation called for, he may not nonetheless conclude in respect of a given
application that the rights of the State must prevail. In so doing, however, he must pay due
regard to, and afford adequate weight to, the constitutional rights of the family under Article
41. He did not do so in these decisions.

LawNerd2020

Thank you very much Awash. Kind of difficult to see how that case could be examined on the paper (apart from in the case note question). I could be vert wrong though. I found today's seminar quite confusing. Anybody have predictions based on today.

I would love a question on interpretation, Pres/AG, SOP and a nice FOE/Property right type question.