KMPT wrote: » Can anyone tell me the two topics that came up as essay questions for Criminal in the last sitting, please? Thanks:-)
RCFE15 wrote: » Hey, anyone have an idea what to expect in criminal as essay question.. There's so much to learn. Thanks
Dsalmon91 wrote: » Quick Question, sorry if it sounds stupid...first time sitting the Fe-1's so not quite sure how things work. I am currently using tabs on my company legislation to make it easier for me to find sections on the day of the exam and i was wondering can i write headings on these tabs for example i have a tab sticking out on S150 of the 1963 Act can i write on this tab Restrictions to make it easeir for me to find this section on the day and differentiate it from other tabs or should i just leave the tab blank and not write anything on. Thanks
MissM89 wrote: » Can anyone tell me a bit about the Pringle v Ireland decision for Constitutional? I may be going mad but I cannot find what chapter it is in in my manual!
maya_bb wrote: » What are people's thoughts on the constitutional case note question this time? What came up the last few times?
missindigo123 wrote: » To be honest, I would leave it if I were you. There is so much that has Togo I to it and there is absolutely no way of guessing what will come up. The PG v HSE might come up (the recent case of the woman's body being used as an incubator for the baby's life), he seems to like John Grace fried Chicken case, McDonald v Bord na gCon, Pringle etc but they aren't always new cases they can be old ones, McGee came up recently too!! There is a list of cases on the Kings Inn syllabus that gets updated frequently, you could check that! I would say if you know the main cases from each chapter you might get lucky in being able to answer the question without and specific study for it!
missindigo123 wrote: » Can anyone help with tort? I know this is the most basic question ever but if we get a Duty Of Care question - what is the final test we use? I understand if its an essay we go with Donoghue, then how the Uk and Ireland differed and then semi-reunited etc but if it was a problem question what exact test do I use? Thanks a mill in advance!
jenspondolik wrote: » Reasonable foreseeability and proximity but now also just and reasonable and if there is precedent before ie incremental approach then any policy against finding against dofc. there is the policy considerations that will influence proximity and therefore finding duty of care through classifying the conduct of the act ie. third party act or omission or public authority liability. Then there are the policy considerations which influence finding dofc in the nature of the of the damage ie economic loss and nervous shock. I can't see any new type of damage being in a problem question which will require a discussion of the new just and reasonable criteria just talk about reasonable forseeablility proximity mention the way ct will take incremental approach and apply the policy consideration cases ie curly v manion or whatever it is. I think...
missindigo123 wrote: » Thanks so much!!! Im totally in panic mode now so cant even comprehend the most basic principles! Not a good sign!!
maya_bb wrote: » Getting totally confused by tort - in rylands v fletcher is the distinction between natural and non natural use still relevant? I thought following statement in Haneahan v Merck etc that it was just a thing that could do mischief but now not sure. Would really appreciate anyone's input. Working off the independent colleges manual and don't find it that great for Tort.
missindigo123 wrote: » Using that manual too - useless, in fact its actually confusing! My understanding of Rylands is that you need to show an accumulation of something on the land, which has escaped, and you have to show that the thing which has escaped was on the land in a non-natural way, this has caused confusion as its not applied consistently by the courts and there is no real guidelines as to what non-natural use is. and Lastly, show damage.(must have been reasonably foreseeable consequence of the escape). I think the distinction is still relevant, I think Haneahan just supports that you can use Rylands in a personal injury claim whereas previously you couldn't (Hunter V Canary Wharf) and that you don't have to be a land owner to bring a case - can be a tenant. The application of 'non-natural use' is a little all over the place in the courts and any place where the land is used commercially could indicate a non-natural use. Being capable of mischief I think goes more to support the reasonable foreseeability of damage. I am horrifically bad at tort but thats my understanding. Could be completely wrong!
Alma Tight Nitty-gritty wrote: » My criminal law study has been conducted entirely from a nutshell and two very outdated textbooks. If I pass this exam there is hope for everyone (: Also does anyone know is R v Marjoram good law in Ireland? Seems very onerous considering how the Irish judiciary love subjective tests for everything.
jenspondolik wrote: » Don't talk to me I've probably done 6 hours over the last three days if even. Only looking at company today since I did it in September and then left it to go into to town because I couldn't face it. I was so motivated for last set and now can't face it
