lawbear wrote: » LawCQ91 wrote: » Mine is all packed up , not going to look at it again ;( but recall It's the one on the charter, something about double jeopardy on EU criminal law and one about art 47 of the charter, The one on criminal law one is definitely not on the syllabus .. To be honest I didn't know what the art 47 is it asking . Did anyone else attempt the charter question? I didnt have a clue what it was really asking but i remembered studying something on the charter, how the judiciary played a huge role in developing it, art 7 then with lisbon, how eu is influenced by ECHR and threw in Art 260 about pecuniary fines and that ....probaby completely wrong but I was desperate...rattled my brain to throw sometging down Yeah, I wrote a bit on the Article 47 question. I mentioned Article 263, UPA v Council (AG Jacobs) in terms of denying people an effective remedy. Good shout on Art 260. I knew topic well but it was all so rushed it never occurred to me to add that!
LawCQ91 wrote: » Mine is all packed up , not going to look at it again ;( but recall It's the one on the charter, something about double jeopardy on EU criminal law and one about art 47 of the charter, The one on criminal law one is definitely not on the syllabus .. To be honest I didn't know what the art 47 is it asking . Did anyone else attempt the charter question? I didnt have a clue what it was really asking but i remembered studying something on the charter, how the judiciary played a huge role in developing it, art 7 then with lisbon, how eu is influenced by ECHR and threw in Art 260 about pecuniary fines and that ....probaby completely wrong but I was desperate...rattled my brain to throw sometging down
FeDespair wrote: » So what happens next? Write letters to the lady mentioned? .
Troels Hartmann wrote: » I'd add a note of caution here before anyone writes to the LS: 1) I'm not sure if I would openly ask for a resit. From the LS perspective that might sound like a cheeky request from a crowd of people who have had a bad exam, and (let's face it) it's a long shot. 2) I'd steer well clear of mentioning prep courses or manuals. Bear in mind that all of them are conducted totally separately from the LS and have nothing to do with them and are therefore not any kind of official indication of the syllabus or likely content of the exam. If you're writing to them, focus on the syllabus syllabus syllabus syllabus, and secondly the appalling and confusing drafting of some of the questions. I suppose we need to be realistic here. While a resit would be nice, the best we might be able to hope for is some kind of drastically lenient marking scheme to take account of all of this. Just when we thought the stress was over!!
missindigo123 wrote: » The law society recommend these courses on their webpage so I think they either need to discuss the course more with the law society or frankly stop recommending them.
notabasicb wrote: » Wrong - straight from Law Society site: "This list has been prepared by the Society at the request of prospective examination candidates. The Society has no control over and makes no input into any of these courses and gives no warranty in respect of them. The Society does not authorise any of these courses and has not asked any of the course providers to establish them." Absolutely no recommendation just provision of a list.
Troels Hartmann wrote: » A very, very tough paper. 1. Choice between role of commission and piece on legislative acts, A.288, delegated powers (I did this one last and just realised that I might have totally misread the question...) 2. Choice of essays on either remedies and the Double Jeopardy rule in the CFR (Eh....NEXT!!) 3. Essay on Pringle v Ireland - a case which makes its fourth successive appearance on the paper! And I still hadnt got it prepared! Lols ugh. 4. Problem on citizenship with a vast, rambling and highly confusing set of facts - with some equally confusing questions posed at the end of it. 5. Pretty standard free movement of goods, services question with a nice choice (2 out of three from 30/110, or 34/36, or a services option) 6. Private international law. Moving swiftly on..... 7. Choice between a nice problem on A.102, or an essay on mergers, or an essay on 107 state aid. 8. Case note which included old reliables Microsoft, ERTA and Zu and Chen A very tough and exhausting paper. I had prepared the Case Notes and Citizenship as my fallback questions .... But ended up doing both of them!! And the Case note was my first question to get it out of the way!! That's when you know things are bad I know he has a rep as a good marker but he will need to be very VERY fair for this because Id say most people were a bit shocked. Or maybe my fragile state of mind has me imagining how bad it was!
dandadub wrote: » Ffs I was about to answer question 7 part 1 with a free movement of goods question and all but article 110 wasn't in the list of articles specified. This was my first attempt at EU and I walked out of there at 12.30 thinking that I just didn't know enough.
LawCQ91 wrote: » Well great.. I thought I had three Qs now I only have two and half after reading this! Eek I totally answered it on free movement of goods on keck... so anyway ... Whoever said they emailed their lecturer please keep us updated !:)
FEar1 wrote: » Literally havn't been able to face that EU paper again till now and I am comforted to see that we're all in the same boat if anything. I was just thinking that I had made an absolute balls in my own study (especially with that fecker of a citizenship problem) and, even though I knew he had caught us out, I didn't realise the effort he had gone to to do it. I'm disgusted and I feel especially bad for a few of the people on here who had plans really screwed up by it! I'll be throwing an extra letter in the post tomorrow. Strength in numbers for all its worth guys. Solidarity!! ;-)
Pepp1989 wrote: » I'll be sitting down tomoro with the paper and checking the syllabus on the law soc website. Are people confident there was a question that wasn't on the syllabus? Is that the main focus of peoples letters? As well as the structuring of questions?
Arcturus2112 wrote: » That, but more broadly speaking the fact that the paper was patently unreasonable. If one covers 85% of the stated syllabus, one should be in a position to address at least the requisite number of questions to a reasonable standard. The previous paper (or perhaps the one previous to that, I don't recall off-hand) had the highest pass rate ever and perhaps this one was intended to reduce that figure. In doing so, he went too far in requiring a unreasonable level of detail for discrete areas either not on the syllabus or questions that could not be reasonably expected to arise. Consider the essay question on fundamental rights. Fundamental rights had previously arisen but usually in the format of a "discuss the development" or something reasonably generally. To arbitrarily pluck two specific Articles and demand the case law and principles on those Articles implicitly suggests that in order to be prepared for that question and have a "detailed knowledge" (as is stated in the syllabus) then one would need to have detailed information researched and commended to memory for each and every Article of the Charter which might be capable of being framed as a question in that way. It is absurd to think that that should be demanded of FE1 students. Who would even possess such a knowledge? Perhaps a practitioner who specialises in rights and deals with the Charter the case law on a daily basis but certainly not people coming from a non-law background who have done their very best to cover the vast majority a syllabus within what could reasonably be expected of them.
Shan89 wrote: » I also have not been able to think about or face the EU paper again until now.. What's the best way to go about the letter do ye think? Do we put our names to it?
Lily Belle wrote: » I'm emailing and also sending a letter today, yes with my name signed. Does anybody know how it worked last time with the petition, do one of just need to set it up and then everyone signs? How do we then bring it to the Law Soc's attention?
