PremiumAlexander K. GCSE Law tutor, A Level Law tutor, IB Russian tutor, GCS...

Alexander K.

Currently unavailable: for new students

MSc in Taxation (Masters) - Oxford, Kellogg College University

5.0
Star 1 Created with Sketch.
Star 1 Created with Sketch.
Star 1 Created with Sketch.
Star 1 Created with Sketch.
Star 1 Created with Sketch.

25 reviews

Trusted by schools

41 completed lessons

Message Alexander

About me

*LLB Law (First Class top 5%)

*currently reading for the MSc in Taxation, University of Oxford 

*DBS Enhanced

* Law tutoring to degree level 

*Oxbridge admissions : I can help you practice for Oxbridge law interviews using published past interview  questions. To date I have tutored 2 students for Oxbridge law admissions and both have now gained admission to Oxford and Cambridge.

I am currently studying a postgraduate degree in Tax Law at the University of Oxford. I am looking forward to teaching you Law!  Law is full of hidden depths and is probably one of the most fascinating subjects out there (though I might be a little biased). 

I will make sure you understand the foundations before we move into the complexities of the subject. I am very friendly. If you do not understand something, please tell me and I will explain it in as many engaging ways as it takes. My aim is for you to get the most efficient and productive lessons possible.

*LLB Law (First Class top 5%)

*currently reading for the MSc in Taxation, University of Oxford 

*DBS Enhanced

* Law tutoring to degree level 

*Oxbridge admissions : I can help you practice for Oxbridge law interviews using published past interview  questions. To date I have tutored 2 students for Oxbridge law admissions and both have now gained admission to Oxford and Cambridge.

I am currently studying a postgraduate degree in Tax Law at the University of Oxford. I am looking forward to teaching you Law!  Law is full of hidden depths and is probably one of the most fascinating subjects out there (though I might be a little biased). 

I will make sure you understand the foundations before we move into the complexities of the subject. I am very friendly. If you do not understand something, please tell me and I will explain it in as many engaging ways as it takes. My aim is for you to get the most efficient and productive lessons possible.

Show more

About my sessions

I am currently studying a postgraduate degree in Tax Law at the University of Oxford.

I am looking forward to teaching you!

Lesson and pricing structure :
1. Before every lesson I send a document with the foundations of the topic that you can use. I have found that this helps students with the clarity of their thought and expression when tackling exam-style questions during the sessions and ultimately in the real examination.
2. We start with making sure that the foundations are well established and then we build detail onto that - detail that can be used to hit the high marks but that cannot usefully exist independently of a structured approach to analysis which is covered in 1.
3. We attempt exam style questions and work through examples for you to apply your understanding.
4. Anything else you want - I am flexible.


I cover law up to degree level and specifically:

1. Contract Law
2. Criminal Law
3. Constitutional and Administrative Law
4. Tort Law
5. Land Law
6. EU Law
7. Equity and Trusts
8. Company Law
 

I am currently studying a postgraduate degree in Tax Law at the University of Oxford.

I am looking forward to teaching you!

Lesson and pricing structure :
1. Before every lesson I send a document with the foundations of the topic that you can use. I have found that this helps students with the clarity of their thought and expression when tackling exam-style questions during the sessions and ultimately in the real examination.
2. We start with making sure that the foundations are well established and then we build detail onto that - detail that can be used to hit the high marks but that cannot usefully exist independently of a structured approach to analysis which is covered in 1.
3. We attempt exam style questions and work through examples for you to apply your understanding.
4. Anything else you want - I am flexible.


I cover law up to degree level and specifically:

1. Contract Law
2. Criminal Law
3. Constitutional and Administrative Law
4. Tort Law
5. Land Law
6. EU Law
7. Equity and Trusts
8. Company Law
 

Show more

DBS Icon

Enhanced DBS Check

28/06/2016

Ratings & Reviews

5from 25 customer reviews
Star 1 Created with Sketch.
Star 1 Created with Sketch.
Star 1 Created with Sketch.
Star 1 Created with Sketch.
Star 1 Created with Sketch.

Benjamin (Parent from Surbiton)

November 13 2017

Could not be better. Excellent advice and fantastic tuition.

Star 1 Created with Sketch.
Star 1 Created with Sketch.
Star 1 Created with Sketch.
Star 1 Created with Sketch.
Star 1 Created with Sketch.

Benjamin (Parent from Surbiton)

October 19 2017

The tutorials have always been excellent. Thanks very much for helping Vivian with her studies.

Star 1 Created with Sketch.
Star 1 Created with Sketch.
Star 1 Created with Sketch.
Star 1 Created with Sketch.
Star 1 Created with Sketch.

Naomi (Student)

December 22 2016

He was really helpful

Star 1 Created with Sketch.
Star 1 Created with Sketch.
Star 1 Created with Sketch.
Star 1 Created with Sketch.
Star 1 Created with Sketch.

Lola (Parent from Buckie)

October 28 2016

It was great experience really good tutor but unfortunately bad connection on the website itself would prefer if could be better communication I was struggling hearing especially when you have hearing impaired . As tutor I advice to another students too . With best regards Mrs Lola Stewart

Show more reviews

Qualifications

SubjectQualificationGrade
Law (LLB)Degree (Bachelors)FIRST CLASS, TOP 5%
HistoryA-level (A2)A
RussianA-level (A2)A*
English LiteratureA-level (A2)A
ChemistryA-level (A2)B

General Availability

Pre 12pm12-5pmAfter 5pm
mondays
tuesdays
wednesdays
thursdays
fridays
saturdays
sundays

Subjects offered

SubjectQualificationPrices
LawA Level£26 /hr
RussianA Level£26 /hr
LawGCSE£24 /hr
RussianGCSE£24 /hr
RussianIB£26 /hr
-Personal Statements-Mentoring£26 /hr

Questions Alexander has answered

What are the elements of common assault in Criminal Law?

Assault is conduct on behalf of the defendant that intentionally or recklessly causes the victim to apprehend immidiate and unlawful personal violenceR v Venna [1975] 3 All ER 788 You must have all the elements of assault ( in bold above). If any of them fail, assault is not made out. 1. "Conduct":  No actual violence is required. Conduct that simply causes apprehension personal violence is enough.  e.g. repeated silent telephone calls have been ruled to be sufficient. (R v Ireland; R v Burstow [1997] 4 All ER 225 ) The conduct element does not require physical action and words or, as in R v Ireland, silence alone are sufficient. What particulair form the words take (whether they are spoken to the victim or written)  is of no relevance as long as they cause the apprehension of unlawful violence. (Schiemann LJ in R v Constanza [1997] 2 Cr App Rep 492 2. "Intentionally or recklessly" "Intentionally"  in the context of assault means deliberately. "Recklessly" can be distilled down to the defendant seeing the possibility of the risk and taking that risk anyway.   In the context of assault, the defendant  must foresse the possibility (even if very slight) that the victim may apprehend unlawful personal violence and take that risk.   Remember, that the prosecution must prove that the defendant  saw the risk and took it anyway because recklessness is subjective (i.e. it is not enough  to prove  that the jury foresaw the risk). R v Cunningham [1957] 2 All ER 412 and R v G and another [2003] UKHL 50,  3. “Apprehend” is expect but not necessarily fear "Apprehension" is not synonymous with “fear” as it is possible to apprehend personal violence without fearing it and vice versa. Though they seem very close, R v Venna focuses on “apprehension” and not “fear”. 4."Immidiate" personal violence  This has been interpreted broadly. The immediacy requirement was satisfied in R v Ireland (above)  by conduct that caused the victim to apprehend violence "within a minute or two"  (see R v Ireland above). 5. Threat must be unlawful The threat will not be unlawful if made in self-defence or with consent of the victim. Assault is conduct on behalf of the defendant that intentionally or recklessly causes the victim to apprehend immidiate and unlawful personal violenceR v Venna [1975] 3 All ER 788 You must have all the elements of assault ( in bold above). If any of them fail, assault is not made out. 1. "Conduct":  No actual violence is required. Conduct that simply causes apprehension personal violence is enough.  e.g. repeated silent telephone calls have been ruled to be sufficient. (R v Ireland; R v Burstow [1997] 4 All ER 225 ) The conduct element does not require physical action and words or, as in R v Ireland, silence alone are sufficient. What particulair form the words take (whether they are spoken to the victim or written)  is of no relevance as long as they cause the apprehension of unlawful violence. (Schiemann LJ in R v Constanza [1997] 2 Cr App Rep 492 2. "Intentionally or recklessly" "Intentionally"  in the context of assault means deliberately. "Recklessly" can be distilled down to the defendant seeing the possibility of the risk and taking that risk anyway.   In the context of assault, the defendant  must foresse the possibility (even if very slight) that the victim may apprehend unlawful personal violence and take that risk.   Remember, that the prosecution must prove that the defendant  saw the risk and took it anyway because recklessness is subjective (i.e. it is not enough  to prove  that the jury foresaw the risk). R v Cunningham [1957] 2 All ER 412 and R v G and another [2003] UKHL 50,  3. “Apprehend” is expect but not necessarily fear "Apprehension" is not synonymous with “fear” as it is possible to apprehend personal violence without fearing it and vice versa. Though they seem very close, R v Venna focuses on “apprehension” and not “fear”. 4."Immidiate" personal violence  This has been interpreted broadly. The immediacy requirement was satisfied in R v Ireland (above)  by conduct that caused the victim to apprehend violence "within a minute or two"  (see R v Ireland above). 5. Threat must be unlawful The threat will not be unlawful if made in self-defence or with consent of the victim.

Show more

9 months ago

369 views

What are the elements of common assault in Criminal Law?

Assault is conduct on behalf of the defendant that intentionally or recklessly causes the victim to apprehend immidiate and unlawful personal violenceR v Venna [1975] 3 All ER 788

You must have all the elements of assault ( in bold above). If any of them fail, assault is not made out.

1. "Conduct":  No actual violence is required. Conduct that simply causes apprehension personal violence is enough.  e.g. repeated silent telephone calls have been ruled to be sufficient. (R v Ireland; R v Burstow [1997] 4 All ER 225 ) The conduct element does not require physical action and words or, as in R v Ireland, silence alone are sufficient. What particulair form the words take (whether they are spoken to the victim or written)  is of no relevance as long as they cause the apprehension of unlawful violence. (Schiemann LJ in R v Constanza [1997] 2 Cr App Rep 492

2. "Intentionally or recklessly"

"Intentionally"  in the context of assault means deliberately. "Recklessly" can be distilled down to the defendant seeing the possibility of the risk and taking that risk anyway.   In the context of assault, the defendant  must foresse the possibility (even if very slight) that the victim may apprehend unlawful personal violence and take that risk.  

Remember, that the prosecution must prove that the defendant  saw the risk and took it anyway because recklessness is subjective (i.e. it is not enough  to prove  that the jury foresaw the risk). R v Cunningham [1957] 2 All ER 412 and R v G and another [2003] UKHL 50, 

3. “Apprehend” is expect but not necessarily fear

"Apprehension" is not synonymous with “fear” as it is possible to apprehend personal violence without fearing it and vice versa. Though they seem very close, R v Venna focuses on “apprehension” and not “fear”.

4."Immidiate" personal violence 

This has been interpreted broadly. The immediacy requirement was satisfied in R v Ireland (above)  by conduct that caused the victim to apprehend violence "within a minute or two"  (see R v Ireland above).

5. Threat must be unlawful

The threat will not be unlawful if made in self-defence or with consent of the victim.

Assault is conduct on behalf of the defendant that intentionally or recklessly causes the victim to apprehend immidiate and unlawful personal violenceR v Venna [1975] 3 All ER 788

You must have all the elements of assault ( in bold above). If any of them fail, assault is not made out.

1. "Conduct":  No actual violence is required. Conduct that simply causes apprehension personal violence is enough.  e.g. repeated silent telephone calls have been ruled to be sufficient. (R v Ireland; R v Burstow [1997] 4 All ER 225 ) The conduct element does not require physical action and words or, as in R v Ireland, silence alone are sufficient. What particulair form the words take (whether they are spoken to the victim or written)  is of no relevance as long as they cause the apprehension of unlawful violence. (Schiemann LJ in R v Constanza [1997] 2 Cr App Rep 492

2. "Intentionally or recklessly"

"Intentionally"  in the context of assault means deliberately. "Recklessly" can be distilled down to the defendant seeing the possibility of the risk and taking that risk anyway.   In the context of assault, the defendant  must foresse the possibility (even if very slight) that the victim may apprehend unlawful personal violence and take that risk.  

Remember, that the prosecution must prove that the defendant  saw the risk and took it anyway because recklessness is subjective (i.e. it is not enough  to prove  that the jury foresaw the risk). R v Cunningham [1957] 2 All ER 412 and R v G and another [2003] UKHL 50, 

3. “Apprehend” is expect but not necessarily fear

"Apprehension" is not synonymous with “fear” as it is possible to apprehend personal violence without fearing it and vice versa. Though they seem very close, R v Venna focuses on “apprehension” and not “fear”.

4."Immidiate" personal violence 

This has been interpreted broadly. The immediacy requirement was satisfied in R v Ireland (above)  by conduct that caused the victim to apprehend violence "within a minute or two"  (see R v Ireland above).

5. Threat must be unlawful

The threat will not be unlawful if made in self-defence or with consent of the victim.

Show more

2 years ago

2454 views

Request a Free Video Meeting


Send message

How do we connect with a tutor?

Where are they based?

How much does tuition cost?

How do Online Lessons work?

We use cookies to improve your site experience. By continuing to use this website, we'll assume that you're OK with this. Dismiss

mtw:mercury1:status:ok