I hear ya Fern! Did feck all today and have company on Wednesday. Needed to take a break from it. Alot of cramming to do tomorrow!
On Sep 29, 7:37 pm, Fern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The Fred thing must have been something relating to the fact that > accessories are as liable as the main perpetrator and if the main perp > is dead then can Bertie be charged. That's what I put. > For Tess I just did the Stone & Dobinson stuff etc. > Anyway, there's no point in obsessing now!! > > Finding it so hard to get into the company way of thinking!!! Is > anyone else exhausted? > > On Sep 29, 7:27 pm, aviationhead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Fern, re Fred Dying in Q7, I just mentioned that it would be > > 'impossible' to convict him for the crime due to the fact that he had > > died. > > > As for Criminal Negligence in Q3, I think you are correct re Seamus, > > However I think that the Negligence was on the part of Tess. She had > > voluntarily assumed the responsibility of > > taking care of Elaine and as such by neglecting to provide her with > > specialist care and leaving her in that state, she failed in her duty, > > thereby causing death. > > > On Sep 29, 7:16 pm, Fern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > For Q7 I did attempted murder, incitement, conspiracy and accessory at > > > the fact. I didn't really get the significant of Fred dying in the > > > middle of it... > > > > I didn't see criminal negligence manslaughter in Q3 - I thought it was > > > an omission to struggle, as in Bland v NHS Airedale and Ward of Court. > > > I thought Seamus was in the clear because of the large body of medical > > > opinion backing him up. Now I'm worried... > > > > On Sep 29, 6:49 pm, Doodles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Will someone put me out of my misery and tell me what offences you > > > > thought were relevant to each of the four parts of Question 7? > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > On Sep 29, 5:34 pm, tiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Exactly, onwards and upwards!! > > > > > > Trying to get started on constitutional now but have a lot of criminal > > > > > crap floating around in my head!! > > > > > > On Sep 29, 5:32 pm, aviationhead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Theres only two things that im disapointed with really; > > > > > > > (a) I talked so much about Sexual Asault on the question about the > > > > > > girl getting her clothes stripped off and > > > > > > ended up forgetting to mention S3 re Aggravated Sexual Assault. > > > > > > What a > > > > > > silly mistake, and > > > > > > > (b) I only had an outline knowledge of Inchoate Offences and > > > > > > Complicity so one of the 4 parters suffered!! > > > > > > > As for the Criminal Negligence, I used it in relation to the > > > > > > principles as outlined in Dunleavy and in Holloway re Tess breaching > > > > > > her voluntarily > > > > > > assumed duty towards Elaine. > > > > > > > But I suppose whats done is done at this stage and we can only do > > > > > > our > > > > > > best. > > > > > > > On Sep 29, 5:09 pm, tiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > My first one too. Was v nervous this morning but so happy to have > > > > > > > first one over with. > > > > > > > > I did mention criminal negligence too in respect of the doctor. > > > > > > > > So much information in the questions and found it took long time > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > read them all, in order to decide which ones to do... > > > > > > > > On Sep 29, 5:07 pm, aviationhead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I did the same as you so lets hope that we are somewhat on the > > > > > > > > right > > > > > > > > track then!! > > > > > > > > > As for the Omissions question, did anyone mention the > > > > > > > > possibility of > > > > > > > > Criminal Negligence Manslaughter charges being brought? > > > > > > > > > And Yeah all of the questions were quite busy alright. It was > > > > > > > > my first > > > > > > > > FE-1 and I now know why everyone says its impossible to > > > > > > > > know how you do!! > > > > > > > > > On Sep 29, 3:29 pm, tiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Oops didn't write any of that stuff. Concentrated on criminal > > > > > > > > > damage, > > > > > > > > > assault causing harm (indirect). oh well, nothing can be done > > > > > > > > > now. > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 29, 3:26 pm, Bee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > The one with Lennie in the cherry picker and Jason the 14 > > > > > > > > > > yr old > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 29, 3:19 pm, stripey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Which one was question 5? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 29, 3:10 pm, Bee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I did anyhow so hopefully that was right! I felt this > > > > > > > > > > > > way when I came > > > > > > > > > > > > out of tort last time and I got it. Onto company now is > > > > > > > > > > > > right. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 29, 2:57 pm, Doodles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guys in Q 5 was it appropriate to go over the mens > > > > > > > > > > > > > rea i.e. hyam, > > > > > > > > > > > > > maloney, etc.? Confused as hell with it all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 29, 2:43 pm, Fern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wow, that was an exhausting paper. I was happy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > enough with it though. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was delighted that there was something on the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > definition of crime > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and something on omissions, they were what I really > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hoped for. Then I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > did the two four-part questions and the provocation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > question too. The > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difficult thing with criminal now is that you have > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be prepared to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > write a five page essay on some weird angle of the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > topic (eg the quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the provocation question was a bit nuts) or you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > could end up just > > > > > > > > > > > > > > writing a page or so in a four-parter. It'd break > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your heart. I really > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hope I get the magic 50% > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, on to company now... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 29, 1:13 pm, Bee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What did everyone think of criminal? They fairly > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > shoved in everything > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they could didn't they?! The questions were very > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > busy I think. I just > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > put down anything that seemed relevant. By the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time you have read the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > questions tho and gather your thoughts it does > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not leave much time for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > writing!- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FE-1 Study Group" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.ie/group/FE-1-Study-Group?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
