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

FE1Hopefully1

LawNerd2020 wrote: »

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.

my predictions are definitely property
family
liberty
equality
AG
non- justicability
standing

i think for interpretation/AG/Pres it will be one or the other or the AG and possible case note on the bacik case

FE1Hopefully1

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.

also showed a sort of thinking of moving away from the traditional concept of marriage - although it did not expressly rule on that point

clarified that there is no automatic constitutional right of co habitation

bluerthanu

Lallers96 wrote: »

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!

christ i was feeling woefully sorry for myself with 3 this week. fairplay, that’s some going (and gives me perspective)!

Lallers96

bluerthanu wrote: »

christ i was feeling woefully sorry for myself with 3 this week. fairplay, that’s some going (and gives me perspective)!

Just got a tad unlucky with the reworked timetable...ah well!

Good luck with your exams

FE1Eire

Katniss1998 wrote: »

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

I'm preparing Sources, General principles as back ups, Direct and Indirect Effect with MS liability as usually together, Judicial review, Citizenship - with a special focus on TCN focused - FMOW also as these can be mixed in a question, FMOG and services as FMOG has come up with services before but can be separate too.

LeagleEagle747

Lallers96 wrote: »

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.

Same, 3 this week and 2 next week. Realistically feel I won't be passing very many, but I'm at the stage of burnt out that I really just don't care anymore.

Good luck to all!

FE1Hopefully1

LeagleEagle747 wrote: »

Same, 3 this week and 2 next week. Realistically feel I won't be passing very many, but I'm at the stage of burnt out that I really just don't care anymore.

Good luck to all!

my outlook is the more you pass the less you have to do so if you pass three ypu only have 2 left so win win haha (trying to console myself )

RaffRiff01

fe1fi20 wrote: »

I have the slides if you want

Any chance you can send the seminar slides to me as well? Thank you so much!

Lealaw

RaffRiff01 wrote: »

fe1fi20 wrote: »

I have the slides if you want

Any chance you can send the seminar slides to me as well? Thank you so much!

If you go back a few pages a kind soul already posted them.

ruby1998

Can't believe I have to turn around after criminal tomorrow and somehow magically learn all my constitutional notes, and also research/add in what he said today - losing the will to live.

FEONE

B vs Director of Oberstown - am I right in saying that the child was denied remission on the basis that he didn't satisfy a breach in Article 40.1 because he wasn't comparing like with like? My understanding is that he is comparing a child procedure with an adult procedure, as opposed to a child with a child. Should you talk about how age discrimination isn't presumptively invalid and it is on the applicant to prove it is arbitrary or unfair?

phildub

FEONE wrote: »

B vs Director of Oberstown - am I right in saying that the child was denied remission on the basis that he didn't satisfy a breach in Article 40.1 because he wasn't comparing like with like? My understanding is that he is comparing a child procedure with an adult procedure, as opposed to a child with a child. Should you talk about how age discrimination isn't presumptively invalid and it is on the applicant to prove it is arbitrary or unfair?

The first part is right, I dont think age discrimination came into it though, my understanding of the case was that it had to do with the fact that the child school gave consessions earlier on such as day passes etc which were not enjoyed by the adult prisoners. I didn't see anything about age but I am open to correction as I don't want to be wrong in the exam!!

FE1Hopefully1

FEONE wrote: »

B vs Director of Oberstown - am I right in saying that the child was denied remission on the basis that he didn't satisfy a breach in Article 40.1 because he wasn't comparing like with like? My understanding is that he is comparing a child procedure with an adult procedure, as opposed to a child with a child. Should you talk about how age discrimination isn't presumptively invalid and it is on the applicant to prove it is arbitrary or unfair?

He was arguing for enhanced remission on the basis of Byrne v Director of Oberstown and argued that it was a breach of equality that an adult was entitled to enhanced remission and a child wasn’t. The court found no breach of the article due to the fact that there was a legitimate reason why there is a difference in treatment between an adult detainee and a child detainee

FEONE

phildub wrote: »

The first part is right, I dont think age discrimination came into it though, my understanding of the case was that it had to do with the fact that the child school gave consessions earlier on such as day passes etc which were not enjoyed by the adult prisoners. I didn't see anything about age but I am open to correction as I don't want to be wrong in the exam!!

FE1Hopefully1 wrote: »

He was arguing for enhanced remission on the basis of Byrne v Director of Oberstown and argued that it was a breach of equality that an adult was entitled to enhanced remission and a child wasn’t. The court found no breach of the article due to the fact that there was a legitimate reason why there is a difference in treatment between an adult detainee and a child detainee

Thank you both ! head is fried trying to understand and make sense of whats going on

Kellyg248

Hi, would you have this question for Tracing?
K

Kellyg248

I was advised by Sarah at the Law Society that they will only show up on the day.
K

Kellyg248

Is the timetable correct on the Law Society site? Equity and Company on Thursday and Friday this week?

Panic now as I took wed/thurs/fri from work!

phildub

Kellyg248 wrote: »

Is the timetable correct on the Law Society site? Equity and Company on Thursday and Friday this week?

Panic now as I took wed/thurs/fri from work!

Yes criminal 2mro then constitutional then equity then company on fri

fe1prep2021

Is it safe to exclude the courts, public order offences, perjury/contempt and offences against the state for criminal?

ruby1998

fe1prep2021 wrote: »

Is it safe to exclude the courts, public order offences, perjury/contempt and offences against the state for criminal?

I hope so lol I left them out too except perjury/contempt but vv basic knowledge!

fe1prep2021

ruby1998 wrote: »

I hope so lol I left them out too except perjury/contempt but vv basic knowledge!

Yeah I can't be bothered at this stage learning any more I will just revise what I have done, good luck!

jjjjjop

Has world wide marevas ever come up?

Hamerzan Sickles

I am going to cram tomorrow with a level of intensity that I have never crammed before. Hopefully this will be my last ever FE1 exam.

legallyginger

Would anybody have a decent summary of Bacik case?

Law101

EU

anyone hazard a guess which essays will come up? I'm hoping fundamental rights not Charter, that came up November and essay on Art 263 AG Jacobs on UPA because equivalence essay came up November too. Any thoughts?

JimmyJazzz

Hamerzan Sickles wrote: »

I am going to cram tomorrow with a level of intensity that I have never crammed before. Hopefully this will be my last ever FE1 exam.

Best of luck, HS. You've definitely put your time in. Your posts stick out clearer to me as a fellow Hobbes.

kayleee123

legallyginger wrote: »

Would anybody have a decent summary of Bacik case?

Bacik and Ors were challenging the refusal of the Taoiseach to call a sitting of the Seanad as certain legislation was due to expire - Varadkar was the interim taoiseach and as such argued that as no Taoiseach had been duly elected could not fulfil the obligations set out in Articles 18.3, 18.8, 18.10.2.
Court agreed and took a literal interpretation of the Constitution - Seanad has 60 members - clear and unambiguous provision. This set a new test for constitutional interpretation. It was held that the starting point is to consider the literal words used and having determined this, it will be necessary next to consider the provision in the context of the constitution as a whole.
In the event of ambiguity or in the event that there is a conflict with other provisions of the constitution - necessary to seek a harmonious interpretation.

nicolesd

can anyone give me any clarity in what cases to discuss regarding non justiciability?

lawgrad49

nicolesd wrote: »

can anyone give me any clarity in what cases to discuss regarding non justiciability?

His examiner report from March 2020, albeit brief, shows you what he is looking for if an essay like that came up again. It was a quote from the Kerins case, so it and O'Brien are 2 cases that show the courts will intervene (in extreme cases) in an area that traditionally would be seen to be non-justiciable. Then he said that people also discussed socio-economic cases where the courts have been hands-off- I'm thinking Sinnott, TD, etc here.

I know Carolan is very hard to predict but I don't know if a full essay would be dedicated to Justiciability again?

Iconic10

gonna be a long day of cramming constitutional ahhh