jenspondolik wrote: » Could someone give me a summary on relevance is zappone if its necessary not in book but on nbns
Troels Hartmann wrote: » Looks like City Colleges didn't produce (publicly at least) any night before notes this time? That's annoying because I found the Tort and Equity ones very helpful previously Also, I hope I'm not the only person who giggles a little bit every time I think of the "John Grace Fried Chicken Ltd" case?! Every time I think of why on earth someone would call a company that, even if it is for a chipper!! Anyway sorry, irrelevant I know. Perhaps I'm just going Ga-Ga from it all and looking for some amusement
tiger_cub wrote: » What is the fried chicken case? can't find it in my manual. *panicking*
missindigo123 wrote: » I think this is the case where a lesbian couple wanted their marriage recognised in the courts, they relied upon changing attitudes towards marriage. Rejected because the court adopted a historical approach to the word marriage and said that only a constitution could change that! It's no overly relevant I don't think!
FE1 student wrote: » Can anyone confirm in the Demache v Dpp case, did he get off due to unconstitutional warrant. Thinking it may be a possible casenote.
jenspondolik wrote: » It was a casenote last march do you think it'll come up again? I think maybe DPP v idah 2014 and the garda surveillance might come up theres just too many possibilities. Griffith sample answer has a paragraph on demance for sample answer then two pages for mahon v post publications. I can't post link but human rights Ireland have a good summary. Im wrecked from tort and nothing done. Tempted to go to be and get up at 4.30[/quote Did not bring past papers with me. Unlikely he will come up again so. Going to bed now alarm set for 4am. roll on the 20th. I will sleep for a week lol
missindigo123 wrote: » That paper !
sunshine and showers wrote: » I thought it was ok! A lot of procedural stuff, though. Couldn't go near the Callely v Moylan question! Question 4 with the doctor was non-delegation, wasn't it? Just heard someone say it was right to a livelihood and now I'm doubting myself!
sunshine and showers wrote: » I don't see more than a tiny bit of right to a livelihood in that question. Now I'm concerned about my interpretation of what all the questions were on! :eek:
marky200ie wrote: » Anyone tackle the "Catholic Teaching" essay question? I discussed marital rights, de-facto family, abortion and homosexuality and the slowness of the legislation to change...anyone in the same ball park or do I start bracing for the repeat? 😖
Lolers11 wrote: » I thought that question was freedom of expression! Oh no! I only put a tiny bit of right to livelihood. Then I put a tiny section of principles and policies at the end! Devastated.
marky200ie wrote: » Hmm..I did the exact same :-/ ..found that paper far more difficult than any of the past papers!
Troels Hartmann wrote: » Also this paper pretty much proves conclusively that he will deliberately avoid the latest hot topics Nothing on life support etc despite PP v HSE Nothing directly on marriage despite the upcoming referendum (ok there was the essay but that had a different focus And nothing on constitutional interpretation despite the recent kerfuffle between Bruce Arnold and various lawyers over the Irish translation of the gay marriage amendment
