FE1 student wrote: » I have done Brendan's constitutional course. He has not given specific tips but said unenumerated rights are due a run. Really his advice was know a little about everything. In 7-10 minute chunks and 15-20 minutes. Best of luck
maya_bb wrote: » What do you mean by 7-10 and 15-20 minute chunks?
lawgirl23 wrote: » How did everybody find criminal today? Was it just me or did NFOAP come up a lot???
smeal wrote: » NFOAP, procedure and practice, sexual assualt and consent came up a lot!! Can't believe he threw a theft element into the sexual consent case! Just goes to show how much of a mix the paper is! Wish I had have studied right to silence then i could have said that I attempted 5 qs well!
missindigo123 wrote: » Can any help me with Judicial Review in Constitutional? Am I right in saying that you can look for a JR where where a minister or an admin body (planning permission, deportation, social welfare, legal aid etc) has failed to give sufficient reasons to justify the decision? So, you can then seek to have them expand on the reasons for their decision and you can challenge their decision, eg. told going to be deported - no reasons given - can apply to have that decision JR'd to be sure that the minister is making the decision in line with established legislation. I feel like I am missing out loads on this topic, its not dealt with at all in my manual except here and there. Thanks in advance!
LawCQ91 wrote: » Hi, for the most part yes, whoever the decision maker is have to respect the right of fair procedure ( which is constitutionally protected - Right to be given reason being one of it). So if they had reached a decision without giving you reasons then you can JR that. Not really sure if that answered your question? I think that part of the course is more admin JR as on the 'process/procedure' is wrong not necessiarly the outcome. If that makes any sense.
missindigo123 wrote: » Thanks a mill, that helped loads. I wasnt connecting it to fair procedures so couldnt quite grasp it in my mind! Constitutional just makes me want to cry!
KMPT wrote: » What are you guys covering for Equity? I am doing: 1. Complete constitution and Strong v Bird 2. Resulting trusts 3. Constructive trusts-strangers 4. Trusteeship- investments 5.Injunctions 6. Specific performance 7. Rectification 8. Undue influence 9. Satisfaction So I am leaving out the rest of express trusts, tracing, the rest of trusteeship, charitable and non charitable purpose trust and estoppel. I have a feeling I am leaving out the important ones but the brain is under pressure :-D What do you think?
LawTalkingGuy wrote: » Courts have come up every second sitting it looks like - I don't know if it came up in Oct. '14 but it came up Oct '09 / Oct 10 / April 11 / Oct 11 / Oct 12 / Oct 13 / April 14 / based on this pattern it would be due an appearance. International Law came up once since 2008 in Oct '11 and Emergency and War not since 2008 - so I am not going to bother with these at all. How I look at it is there are only so many rights so learn them - not all of them too deeply but just enough. Then if you also learn the basic principles - proportionality , locus standi, unconstitutionality, sep powers, mootness then you should be fine as these will be mixed into the questions on rights. Then one bonus like courts or constitutional interpretation if you haven't fallen down with exhaustion! The way I look at it is you can't set a criminal law paper without Rape, Murder, Non- Fatal and Theft Offences and defenses so learn them and you will be fine. Same with constitutional - you can't set a constitutional paper without the rights and the basic principles. Better to have a broad understanding of these but I don't think it needs to be v deep.
dashdoll wrote: » Does anyone know with the new rules if it ia definitely ok to sit just 3 exams the first sitting? Signed up for Company tomorrow but there is no way I will pass it as this stage but not sure if I still need to go sign in? I read the rules and seems like I dont need to but want to be 100% sure.
May92 wrote: » Don't know if they changed it, but I thought you had to sit 4 and pass 3. As in, you would need to sign in for it but can leave after the 45 mins. That could be wrong.
jenspondolik wrote: » I think in new rules its just three. Can u pull an alnighter and cover ones that used to come up regularly though not sure if this sitting will be the usual. Did you sit it before? Ive tort and constitutional after company and I'll prob get 6 hrs sleep in three days as nothing done but its worth a shot?. You could cover directors restriction Borrowings SLP; minority borrowings six topics and you could get dog lucky. If you gave an hour each you'd be up til 12 and get up at six then for three more hrs revision and you won't have lost much. Last sitting I passed contract with 3 qs and half a day study in sept (had read it last march and like u focused on three and didnt do it just signed in) and failed company with 3 Q's in sept so these exams are strange you don't know what you'll pass til you get results letter. If you've any bit done at all or even did company at all go in and write like the clappers. I've learned my lesson from abstaining from exams and wishing I'd done them after
