I recently graduated from the University of Cambridge in Law and completed my A Levels in 2012 with 4 A*s in Maths, Economics, Physics and Chemistry.
I am a friendly and approachable person and have previously tutored A Level Economics students on an ad hoc basis. I am passionate about my subjects and have a thorough understanding in them.Â
I enjoy helping others understand difficult areas and having been a student recently, I know of the importance of exam technique in order to get the high grades and will incorporate that into my teaching.
I am a proficient public speaker and am able to explain concepts concisely and in different ways, which is important to cater to different learning styles.Â
What we cover will entirely be decided by the student and at the pace the student wants. I believe that it is important to have a solid understanding of the basics first and then to look at exam questions to develop exam technique. When teaching a difficult concept, I intend to use a variety of methods to ensure that the student understands it. I am happy to tutor for any A Level exam board and am up to date on both the current and new A Level specifications.
Finally, please do feel free to get in touch - I aim to respond to messages within 24 hours and I'm happy to schedule a free âMeet the Tutorâ session.
|Economics||A Level||£36 /hr|
|Law||A Level||£36 /hr|
|Maths||13 Plus||£36 /hr|
|.LNAT.||Uni Admissions Test||£36 /hr|
|BA Law, University of Cambridge||Bachelors Degree||2.1|
|Before 12pm||12pm - 5pm||After 5pm|
Please get in touch for more detailed availability
Connie (Student) December 14 2016
Kushal (Student) November 18 2016
Jola (Student) June 3 2016
Antonia (Parent) June 6 2016
The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) gives effect to provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law. This made significant changes to the UK’s constitutional law and judges were given new powers under the HRA. However, the HRA is not destructive of Parliamentary Sovereignty and this will be discussed in the context of sections 3 and 4 of the HRA.
The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty is that Parliament can make or unmake any law it wants to - it is the supreme law making body in the UK - and no other body can set aside an Act of Parliament. Ultimately, there is no official power given to courts to strike down legislation in the HRA and the HRA is not entrenched and thus, is not destructive of Parliamentary Sovereignty. Parliamentary supremacy still remains.
The Human Rights Act though gives courts two measures that they can take. The first, under section 3, requires legislation to be interpreted in a way that is consistent with Convention rights where possible. If it is not possible to find a consistent interpretation, the higher courts have recourse to a second measure, under section 4, to issue a declaration of incompatibility.
Under section 3, the courts are required to interpret and give effect to statutes in way that is compatible with convention rights so far as it is possible to do so. This is in addition to the normal purposive approach to interpretation and is stronger than it (R v A). Further, the courts’ interpretation of a statute under s.3 does not need to provide an interpretation that is consistent with the intention of Parliament when it enacted the statute (Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza). Hence, the courts could give a statute a different meaning to that originally intended by Parliament. Nonetheless, Parliament remains supreme. It can still enact a statute that is inconsistent with Convention rights with very clear language and courts would have to uphold an ECHR-incompatible statute if it cannot be interpreted in a compatible way under section 3. Therefore, Parliamentary Sovereignty is not restricted at all.
Where it is not possible to interpret a statute compatibly with the ECHR under Section 3, the courts can have recourse to Section 4 of the HRA and issue a declaration of incompatibility. This merely indicates that the particular provision is incompatible with the ECHR - it does not invalidate the statute, but a minister can amend the legislation via a fast track process (s.10). Hence, as the courts can not strike down an Act of Parliament, Parliamentary Sovereignty remands formally intact. Parliament simply has the option to act.
Finally, the Human Rights Act itself is not entrenched at all. It can be repealed by the legislative process in Parliament. Therefore, the Human Rights Act is not at all destructive of Parliamentary Sovereignty or Parliamentary Supremacy. Parliament is still the supreme law making body in the UK - it can make or unmake any law, including the Human Rights Act itself or legislation that is incompatible with the Convention.see more
Where a criminal offence requires the defendant to have an intention to achieve a result, there are 2 different tests of intention:
(1) Direct Intention, or
(2) Oblique Intention
This is the ordinary mean of intention, as used in everyday language. For example, the defendant ('D') intends a result if he acts with the purpose of bringing it about. So, if D is trying to kill V and behaves as he does in order to kill V, there is clearly (direct) intention here.
In an exam context, always look at direct intention first - oblique intent is rarely required. Consider oblique intent if there's no direct intention.
This is where the result was not sought by D but the result is so closely bound with D's actiosn that D is said to have intended the result.
The definition: If the result (e.g. the victim's death) was a virtual certainty of D's actions and D had foreseen that the result was virtually certain to occur, the jury can find oblique intention.see more
Firstly, transition metal ions are not coloured on their own - it is only when they become complex ions that they become coloured.
In a transition metal ion, all the d orbitals are at the same energy level (there's no difference in energy level between them whatsoever). However, when it forms a complex ion (which is when ligands surround the ion & the no. of coordinate bonds is greater than the oxidation state), the d orbitals split into 2 sets as the electrons from the ligands interfere with it.
Accordingly, there is now a set of 3 orbitals and a set of 2 orbitals. These sets are at different energy levels - the 3-orbital set is at a lower energy level than the 2-orbital set. Hence, a specific amount of energy is needed for an electron to move from the lower orbitals to the higher orbitals. Remember from AS that [Delta]E = hf and so, the energy required corresponds to a specific frequency of light.
Hence, when white light is shone onto the complex ion, certain frequencies of light are absorbed (which promotes an electron to a ‘higher’ orbital).
Any light which is not absorbed is the colour of the complex ion as the non-absorbed light is reflected back into our eyes.
For example, if the colour of the complex ion is blue - this means that red light is absorbed and that blue light is reflected. It is helpful to look at/think of the visible spectrum of light for this (the colours of the rainbow basically!).In essence, the colour that we see consists of the frequencies of light which are not absorbed.
Finally, different ligands interfere with the ion’s orbitals differently and thus, cause different splitting of the d-orbitals. Therefore, different frequencies of light are absorbed and this leads to different colours.
For example, Cu2+ in water is pale blue (the water molecules are the ligands) but when ammonia is added, the complex ion turns a royal blue colour.see more