Year 8 WJEC Law: Formula & Principle Quick Reference Handbook | 年8 WJEC 法律:公式定理速查手册

📚 Year 8 WJEC Law: Formula & Principle Quick Reference Handbook | 年8 WJEC 法律:公式定理速查手册

Welcome to your Year 8 WJEC Law quick reference guide. Here you will find the core legal formulas, rules, and principles presented as simple equations and checklists. Treat each entry like a formula in maths or science — it shows you how to build a legal argument or identify a legal problem.

欢迎使用你的年8 WJEC 法律速查手册。这里你将找到核心的法律公式、规则和原则,并以简单的等式和清单呈现。把每一个条目当作数学或科学中的公式——它告诉你如何构建一个法律论据或识别一个法律问题。

1. The Basic Crime Formula | 犯罪基本公式

Every crime (almost) has two essential parts. If one part is missing, there is no crime.

每个犯罪(几乎)都有两个必要部分。如果缺少一部分,就不构成犯罪。

  • Formula: Actus Reus + Mens Rea = Crime
  • 公式: 犯罪行为 + 犯罪意图 = 犯罪

Without a guilty act, you cannot be convicted. Without a guilty mind, you usually cannot be convicted either.

没有犯罪行为,你不能被定罪。没有犯罪意图,你通常也不能被定罪。

Example: If you accidentally take someone else’s identical bag thinking it is yours, you lack mens rea (no intention to steal).

例子:如果你误拿了别人的相同款式包包以为是自己,你缺少犯罪意图(没有偷窃的意图)。


2. Actus Reus Breakdown | 犯罪行为分解

Actus reus can be an act, an omission (failure to act), or a state of affairs. Check these three forms.

犯罪行为可以是作为、不作为(未能行动)或事态。请检查这三种形式。

  • Formula: Actus Reus = Voluntary Act / Omission / State of Affairs
  • 公式: 犯罪行为 = 自愿行为 / 不作为 / 事态

An omission only counts if you have a legal duty to act, e.g. a parent failing to feed a child.

不作为只有在你负有法律义务时才构成,例如父母未能喂养孩子。

Example of state of affairs: being found drunk in charge of a vehicle — the situation itself is the actus reus.

事态的例子:被发现醉酒掌管车辆——这种情况本身即为犯罪行为。


3. Mens Rea Levels | 犯罪意图等级

Mens rea is not just one type. It has different levels of blameworthiness.

犯罪意图不只有一种类型。它有不同的可责性等级。

  • Formula: Mens Rea = Intention / Recklessness / Negligence (in some offences)
  • 公式: 犯罪意图 = 故意 / 轻率 / 过失(在某些犯罪中)

Intention is the highest form: you aim to bring about the result. Recklessness is taking an unjustified risk you are aware of. Negligence is failing to see a risk a reasonable person would have seen.

故意是最高形式:你旨在导致该结果。轻率是明知有不正当风险而为之。过失是未能看到一个理性人会看到的危险。

Example: Pushing someone off a roof (intention); throwing a brick without looking into a crowd (recklessness); a doctor forgetting to check a fatal allergy (negligence).

例子:将某人推下屋顶(故意);看也不看向人群扔砖块(轻率);医生忘记检查致命过敏(过失)。


4. Causation Rule | 因果关系规则

Even if you have actus reus and mens rea, you must prove the defendant caused the result. There are two parts to causation.

即使你有犯罪行为和犯罪意图,你必须证明被告造成了结果。因果关系有两个部分。

  • Formula: Factual Causation (the ‘but for’ test) + Legal Causation (substantial and operative cause)
  • 公式: 事实因果关系(“若非”测试)+ 法律因果关系(实质性且起作用的起因)

Factual: But for the defendant’s conduct, would the result have happened? If no, factual causation is satisfied.

事实:若非被告的行为,结果会发生吗?如果不会,事实因果关系成立。

Legal: The defendant’s action must be more than a minimal cause, and no intervening act breaks the chain of causation.

法律:被告的行为必须不仅仅是微小起因,且没有介入行为打断因果链条。


5. Strict Liability Exception | 严格责任例外

Some offences do not require mens rea. They are called strict liability offences. The formula changes.

有些犯罪不要求犯罪意图。它们被称为严格责任犯罪。公式变了。

  • Formula: Actus Reus alone = Strict Liability Offence
  • 公式: 仅有犯罪行为 = 严格责任犯罪

Example: speeding, selling alcohol to a minor, or food safety breaches. Even if you didn’t mean to, you are guilty.

例子:超速、卖酒给未成年人,或违反食品安全。即使你不是故意的,你也有罪。

Justification: These offences protect public safety and order; proving mens rea would make enforcement too difficult.

理由:这些犯罪保护公共安全和秩序,要求证明犯罪意图会使执法过于困难。


6. Tort Law Formula: Negligence | 侵权法公式:过失

A tort is a civil wrong. The most common tort is negligence. It has a four-part formula.

侵权是民事过错。最常见的侵权是过失。它有一个四部分的公式。

  • Formula: Duty of Care + Breach of Duty + Causation + Damage = Negligence
  • 公式: 注意义务 + 违反义务 + 因果关系 + 损害 = 过失

First, did the defendant owe the claimant a duty of care? The neighbour principle: you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would injure your neighbour.

首先,被告对原告是否负有注意义务?邻人原则:你必须合理注意,避免你可以合理预见会伤害邻人的作为或不作为。

Second, breach: did the defendant fall below the standard of a reasonable person? Third, causation: did the breach cause the damage? Finally, damage: did the claimant suffer actual harm?

第二,违反:被告是否低于合理人的标准?第三,因果关系:违反是否造成损害?最后,损害:原告是否遭受实际伤害?


7. Sources of Law: The Hierarchy | 法律渊源:层级

Law comes from different sources, and some are more powerful than others. Remember this order.

法律来自不同渊源,其中一些比另一些更有力。记住这个顺序。

  • Formula (Hierarchy): EU-derived Law (still influential) / Statute Law (Acts of Parliament) > Common Law (judge-made law) > Custom
  • 公式(层级): 欧盟衍生法(仍有影响) / 成文法(议会立法) > 普通法(法官造法) > 习惯

Parliament is sovereign; it can override any other law. EU law was supreme before Brexit, and some retained EU law still ranks high.

议会至上;它可以推翻任何其他法律。脱欧前欧盟法最高,一些保留的欧盟法仍具较高地位。

Example: The Human Rights Act 1998 gives effect to the European Convention on Human Rights in UK law, but Parliament can theoretically repeal it.

例子:1998年《人权法》使《欧洲人权公约》在联合王国法律中生效,但议会理论上可以废除它。


8. Criminal Trial Process Formula | 刑事审判流程公式

The criminal justice system follows a step-by-step formula, from incident to verdict.

刑事司法制度遵循一个逐步的公式,从事件到判决。

  • Formula: Incident → Police Investigation → CPS review (Full Code Test) → Charge → Magistrates’ Court (first hearing) → Crown Court or Magistrates’ trial → Verdict → Sentencing
  • 公式: 事件 → 警察调查 → 皇家检察署审查(完整代码检验) → 起诉 → 治安法院(首次聆讯) → 刑事法院或治安法院审判 → 判决 → 量刑

The Full Code Test has two parts: (1) Evidential stage: is there enough evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction? (2) Public interest stage: is it in the public interest to prosecute?

完整代码检验有两部分:(1)证据阶段:是否有足够证据有定罪的现实可能?(2)公共利益阶段:起诉是否符合公共利益?


9. Jury Decision Formula | 陪审团裁决公式

In a Crown Court trial, the jury decides the verdict. But there are strict rules for their decision.

在刑事法院审判中,陪审团决定裁决。但对他们的决定有严格规则。

  • Formula: Unanimous verdict (all 12) → After 2+ hours deliberation, majority verdict may be accepted (10–2 or 11–1). Never use 9–3 in a full 12-member jury.
  • 公式: 一致裁决(全部12人) → 经过2小时以上审议后,可接受多数裁决(10比2或11比1)。在全由12人组成的陪审团中,从不使用9比3。

The judge does not decide guilt (except in rare exceptions). The jury applies the law as directed by the judge to the facts.

法官不决定有罪与否(极少数例外除外)。陪审团根据法官对法律的具体指示将其适用于事实。


10. Sentencing Aims Equation | 量刑目标方程

When a defendant is found guilty, the judge or magistrates impose a sentence. The sentence must achieve at least one of five statutory aims.

当被告被定罪,法官或治安法官处以刑罚。刑罚必须达到五项法定目标中的至少一项。

  • Formula: Sentence = aim(s) chosen from {Punishment, Reduction of crime (deterrence), Reform and rehabilitation, Protection of the public, Reparation}
  • 公式: 刑罚 = 从{惩罚、减少犯罪(威慑)、改造与更生、保护公众、赔偿}中选择的目标

Example: a custodial sentence for violent robbery may serve punishment, deterrence, and public protection.

例子:对暴力抢劫判处监禁刑可能服务于惩罚、威慑和公众保护。


11. Human Rights Balance Test | 人权平衡检验

Many rights are not absolute. They can be restricted if necessary in a democratic society. Use this proportional check.

许多权利并非绝对。如果在民主社会中是必要的,它们可以被限制。请使用这一相称性检查。

  • Formula: Interference with a right must be (a) prescribed by law, (b) pursue a legitimate aim, (c) necessary and proportionate. If all yes, it may be justified.
  • 公式: 对权利的干涉必须(a)由法律规定,(b)追求合法目的,(c)必要且相称。如果全部满足,可能具有正当性。

Example: Freedom of expression may be limited to prevent hate speech or protect national security, but not to silence political dissent without strong justification.

例子:表达自由可被限制以防止仇恨言论或保护国家安全,但不能在没有强有力理由的情况下压制政治异见。


12. Civil vs Criminal Quick Identification | 民事与刑事快速鉴别

Before applying any formula, identify the type of case. Use this checklist.

在应用任何公式之前,先鉴别案件类型。使用该清单。

Criminal Civil
State prosecutes Individual/company sues another
Aims to punish Aims to compensate or enforce a right
Standard: beyond reasonable doubt Standard: balance of probabilities
Outcome: guilty or not guilty Outcome: liable or not liable
Court: Magistrates’ or Crown Court Court: County Court or High Court

Memorise: Criminal = state, punishment, beyond reasonable doubt. Civil = private, compensation, balance of probabilities.

记住:刑事 = 国家,惩罚,排除合理怀疑。民事 = 私人,赔偿,盖然性权衡。


Published by TutorHao | WJEC Law Revision Series | aleveler.com

更多咨询请联系16621398022(同微信)

Comments

屏轩国际教育cambridge primary/secondary checkpoint, cat4, ukiset,ukcat,igcse,alevel,PAT,STEP,MAT, ibdp,ap,ssat,sat,sat2课程辅导,国外大学本科硕士研究生博士课程论文辅导

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from aleveler.com

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading