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

NewFe1

FEONE wrote: »

Yeah absolutely ! You can bring it in as a power of the president and focus on the limitations and consequences of a 26 reference

Perfect thanks! Was thinking there wasn't really enough for an essay without it

FE1s2021

fe1prep2021 wrote: »

Locus Standi
Family
Non - justiciability
AG
Interpretation
Equality

And whatever else I can fit in, Im the exact same!! Hopefully there's enough time to cram

Do people think there is going to be a whole question on non-justiciability?

Lealaw

cailinbeag00 wrote: »

Did anyone have difficulty with the exam freezing persistently? I did over the first hour and a half and it really bogged me down. Then it froze for well in excess of five minutes so at that stage I rang the Law Society as it didn’t look likely to come good. Told to log out etc. All fine afterwards and it ran really smoothly but found it so frustrating. I Don’t think it was my laptop or an internet issue!

I'd send an email so you have it in writing just in case there is any issue with your script. I don't think they keep a track of candidate calls. Very annoying, hopefully it didn't put you off.

FEONE

NewFe1 wrote: »

If an essay question was to come up on the president would you discuss in detail the article 26 reference?

Yeah absolutely ! You can bring it in as a power of the president and focus on the limitations and consequences of a 26 reference

Fe1user5555

If I was to focus on one of non justiciability or family which would people think is preferable ?

cailinbeag00

Did anyone have difficulty with the exam freezing persistently? I did over the first hour and a half and it really bogged me down. Then it froze for well in excess of five minutes so at that stage I rang the Law Society as it didn’t look likely to come good. Told to log out etc. All fine afterwards and it ran really smoothly but found it so frustrating. I Don’t think it was my laptop or an internet issue!

NewFe1

If an essay question was to come up on the president would you discuss in detail the article 26 reference?

fe1prep2021

ElMo7 wrote: »

Hey guys, just after sitting criminal and now facing into a long night of constitutional. What are people putting their main focus on? Thanks

Locus Standi
Family
Non - justiciability
AG
Interpretation
Equality

And whatever else I can fit in, Im the exact same!! Hopefully there's enough time to cram

ElMo7

Hey guys, just after sitting criminal and now facing into a long night of constitutional. What are people putting their main focus on? Thanks

Creg12

Art 49 - Freedom of Establishment - is it ever asked in EU?

As far I can see the last time it was asked was 2014 with the old examiner? Am I right in thinking this ?

Thanks

Hamerzan Sickles

Leaving out Trial in Due Course of Law and covering pretty much everything else. Surely that will be enough to give me 5 questions.

Iso_123

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

Are you sure that we need to discuss the Campus Oil principles? Have they not been replaced by the likes of Szabo/Ryanair etc.?

The campus oil principles are still correct to apply for interlocutory QT injunctions. You need to discuss Szabo/ryan air cases then also campus oil principles. from my understanding Szabo basically says that the legal principles for QT injunctions are the same as for other type of injunctions (so campus oil test if its prohibitory and strong case etc if mandatory) but with an added evidential burden of showing there is a substantial risk of future injury. So legal principles the same but evidential burden higher.

the RTE case I think can be read as meaning that if the substantial risk of injury is undisputed/obvious you can just apply campus oil without need for proving higher evidential burden

EmmaO94

123456789j wrote: »

Hi all, quick q re legislation. Don’t have a constitution for tomorrow, opw never got back to me. I assume should be no issues just printing it out? Say criminal today and by looks of it, you aren’t prompted to show anything!

OPW also didn't send me out mine, after promising to on the 10th. Luckily I bought a slightly out of date secondhand one nline so will just be using that, but I'd say contact the law soc and you should be able to print it out. Not impressed with the OPW at all

Lallers96

Buttonbean123 wrote: »

Not sure if this is of any benefit to anyone but I logged on at 11am for today’s exam and in November for two of my exams and it still allowed me the full 3.5 hours. Just after finishing my exam there at 2.15pm so just in case anyone’s looking for extra cramming time on the morning of the exam!

Jesus I didn't know you could do that haha.

Lallers96

Fe1user5555 wrote: »

honestly didn’t think it was the nicest paper I’ve seen hahaha

Yeah I didn't think that was a kind paper. I find the problem questions very long in Criminal law and there was little choice, with only 1 essay question and 7 problem Qs which is abnormally low

Buttonbean123

Not sure if this is of any benefit to anyone but I logged on at 11am for today’s exam and in November for two of my exams and it still allowed me the full 3.5 hours. Just after finishing my exam there at 2.15pm so just in case anyone’s looking for extra cramming time on the morning of the exam!

FE1Hopefully1

123456789j wrote: »

Hi all, quick q re legislation. Don’t have a constitution for tomorrow, opw never got back to me. I assume should be no issues just printing it out? Say criminal today and by looks of it, you aren’t prompted to show anything!

They expressly refer to the permitted legislation which is the official ones and no mention of printing off

But I’d email and say that the OPW never got back to you and you have to use printouts

123456789j

Hi all, quick q re legislation. Don’t have a constitution for tomorrow, opw never got back to me. I assume should be no issues just printing it out? Say criminal today and by looks of it, you aren’t prompted to show anything!

fe12020oct

anybody have the most important cases for non justiciability? would really appreciate!

bigchungus

BookFast wrote: »

Disaster, was the time taken off your total time then?

No thankfully not. I presumed it would be but then realised I'd finished the exam at 13:07 so they gave me the minutes back

LawBoy2018

lnmbk wrote: »

(Someone please correct me if I'm wrong) but yes, from what I understand you need Campus Oil principles AND szabo v ESAT digiphone which the test is proven substantial risk of danger (as applied in Ryanair v Aer Rianta, Garraghy v Bord na gCon, Murphy v Irish Water)

Are you sure that we need to discuss the Campus Oil principles? Have they not been replaced by the likes of Szabo/Ryanair etc.?

flepetch

Zlatorog wrote: »

I think it does and would put it down if answering a QT injunction. In Szabo, Geoeghegan J considered the Campus Oil criteria but thought that it was inappropriate given the balancing of the plaintiff childrens lives and the business in the case. I think if there was an amenity of public good threatened, you could apply Campus but if there was something more of a threat to human life etc you could follow on from Geoghegan in that case and say that the Court may not apply Campus due to the consideratiosn. I think the reports have noted that there is confusion with the test in any event so once you give reasoning for the caselaw you're applying, it should be fine I hope!

my notes also mention that the Campus Oil principles were applied in the earlier case of National Irish Bank v RTE "but Geoghegan's position in Szabo is good law" because even if the principles were applied, he still would not have granted the injunction.

BookFast

bigchungus wrote: »

I freaked out for 30 seconds then it brought me back to the very start of the BE process - had to show ID, do the smile thing. Incredibly frustrating and the first time it didn't work, aswell, but after that I didn't have any trouble. I rang the LS after just to explain it to them and they said they had tonnes of people ringing them about it

Disaster, was the time taken off your total time then?

ruby1998

bigchungus wrote: »

by classification do you mean characterisation, as in the indicia set out in Melling? that's what I did and hopinggg that was the right thing to do

Yes!!

bigchungus

ruby1998 wrote: »

I think (hope) it was classification of a crime and the Gillian v CAB case I said it wasn’t criminal in nature and they would not be entitled to 38.1 or A6 echr safeguards in the investigation

by classification do you mean characterisation, as in the indicia set out in Melling? that's what I did and hopinggg that was the right thing to do

Fe1Hopeful91

bigchungus wrote: »

I freaked out for 30 seconds then it brought me back to the very start of the BE process - had to show ID, do the smile thing. Incredibly frustrating and the first time it didn't work, aswell, but after that I didn't have any trouble. I rang the LS after just to explain it to them and they said they had tonnes of people ringing them about it

Ok thanks. I was hoping they would have sorted out the glitches after the November sitting. As if we don't have enough to be stressing about.

bigchungus

Fe1Hopeful91 wrote: »

Hey folks. Can I just ask what you did when it logged you out? Like does it just log you out of the whole BE website or just the exam? Did you ring LS or just log back in? And (last question) does your time pause when your logged out or do you just lose that time?

I freaked out for 30 seconds then it brought me back to the very start of the BE process - had to show ID, do the smile thing. Incredibly frustrating and the first time it didn't work, aswell, but after that I didn't have any trouble. I rang the LS after just to explain it to them and they said they had tonnes of people ringing them about it

ruby1998

BookFast wrote: »

What in the name of God was that CAB question

I think (hope) it was classification of a crime and the Gillian v CAB case I said it wasn’t criminal in nature and they would not be entitled to 38.1 or A6 echr safeguards in the investigation

vkfe1

bigchungus wrote: »

I found it alright until it logged me out midway through!! was so freaked. I did:
Q1 - necessity and self-defence
Q2 - Vehicular manslaughter, criminal and dangerous act, and gross negligence
Q5(i think?) - attempted rape, consent and the other offences
can't remember the numbers of the other two but the characterisation of crimes one and then right to silence/bail

Isn't he an alright marker for criminal anyway?

He's one of the nicer markers for sure. Hope you all got on okay

Anything different about the better examinations in terms of invigilation? I keep having nightmares that i'll get in trouble for taking bathroom breaks!!!

Fe1user5555

Would anyone have very condensed family and education notes for con? I haven’t done it yet and I really can’t face the long notes I prepared a few weeks ago!