Hey ryan, here ya go! (don't suppose you have the criminal march 2009 exam report? i got the paper but looking for the report as usually they are pretty helpful. )
The performance of candidates for the most recent sitting of the Constitutional Law paper for the FE-I exams was broadly in line with previous sittings of this exam. Once again, there was a significant minority of students who performed very poorly and failed to pass the exam. Once again, these students made many of the same mistakes and demonstrated the same lack of skills which had caused candidates to fail this exam in previous sittings. There are a number of common errors which candidates should strive to avoid. The most common reason for a candidate to fail the exam is by providing answers which are irrelevant to the question asked. This tends to occur in one of two ways. Candidates either incorrectly identify the subject-matter of the question, or they correctly identify the subject-matter but then proceed to provid.e a lengthy discussion of constitutional caselaw which is not relevant to the question asked. This latter mistake was frequently made, for example, by candidates who chose to answer Question 7. Many of these candidates correctly identified that the question concerned Stuart's right to a fair trial under Article 38. 1. However, they then proceeded to devote the majority of their answer to discussing the many various aspects of the rights protected under Article 38. I, regardless of their relevance to Stuart's situation. Candidates should remember that they are being asked to advise an individual as to how constitutional law is relevant to their situation. They are not being asked to provide that individual with a lecture on irrelevant aspects of the Irish Constitution. A similar error was frequently made with regard to the standing of Linda in Question 5. Some students spent the majority of time discussing whether Linda had standing to challenge the measure in question. Most of these students embarked on a lengthy discussion of the SPUClLancefortlPenal Reform Trust caselaw relating to the standing of interest groups to challenge measures. As there is no suggestion that a group is involved in this case, or that Linda is seeking to take the case on behalf of another who cannot, this was irrelevant material for which candidates obtained very few marks. These errors reflect the wider reasons why certain candidates continue to fail this exam. Those candidates who fail generally appear to have rote-learned a list of cases and rules without any real appreciation of the relevant principles in the areas in question. They do not understand the material and they are accordingly unable to apply it to the questions asked. They are unable to identify the two or three cases that may be relevant, and to answer the question by reference to them. Instead they produce a long recitation of material, the relevance of which to the question asked is either non-existent or badly explained. These candidates should bear in mind that many students who pass do so with shorter, more targeted answers which deal directly with the question asked. They also tend to compound this error by rote-learning a small number of topics and answering questions on them, regardless of whether they are asked or not. Candidates should not try to identify patterns in previous exam papers with a view to identifying what is 'due to come up'. As the law develops, the topicality and importance in practice of particular areas change. The paper changes to reflect this. Furthermore, the paper is not set by reference to previous papers, so any predictions based on these are unreliable and potentially misleading. Many students appear to be relying on a common set of predictions, and failing the paper as a result. The general lack of understanding of some candidates was most evident in this sitting in relation to Question 5. The standard of answer for this question was very poor. This seems to have been because the facts of the case did not directly resemble any previously decided authority of the Irish courts. As a result, candidates were required to think for themselves about what material might be relevant. The vast majority of candidates were clearly unable to do so. Very few students, for example, correctly identified the potential implications which the measure in question could have for freedom of political expression, or the right to communicate. Many students answered the question by reference to the doctrine of proportionality as if it was a free-standing constitutional right. These candidates tended to indicate that the interference with Linda's constitutional rights had to be proportionate to the aim to be achieved - but then failed to specify what constitutional rights were in question. This demonstrated not only an inability to correctly identify the rights engaged, but also a fundamental lack of understanding of the doctrine of proportionality itself. On Sep 15, 12:39 pm, ryan80 <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey guys, > If anyone has the 2009 Const exam report would they mind uploading it? > Cheers. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
