Legal Formulae & Maxims Quick Reference | 法律公式定理速查手册

📚 Legal Formulae & Maxims Quick Reference | 法律公式定理速查手册

In Cambridge Year 10 Law, understanding key legal principles often means learning precise definitions and relationships – much like ‘formulae’ in science. This quick-reference handbook translates core topics from Criminal Law, Tort, and Contract Law into memorable equations, step‑by‑step tests, and essential Latin maxims. Each entry is designed to help you recall the structure of liability, defences, and legal reasoning required for the exam.

在剑桥 Year 10 法律课程中，理解关键法律原则常常意味着学习精确的定义和关系——就像科学中的“公式”一样。这本速查手册将刑法、侵权法和合同法的核心主题转化为易记的等式、分步检验和重要的拉丁文格言。每个条目都旨在帮助你回忆责任结构、抗辩事由以及考试所需的法律推理。

1. General Crime Formula | 一般犯罪构成公式

Crime = Actus Reus + Mens Rea – Defence

A person is criminally liable when a voluntary act or omission (actus reus) coincides with a guilty mind (mens rea), and no valid defence applies. Both elements must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.

当自愿的作为或不作为（犯罪行为）与犯罪意图（犯罪心态）同时发生，并且没有有效的抗辩事由时，即构成刑事责任。控方必须排除合理怀疑地证明这两个要素。

Actus reus can be an act, omission (where duty exists), or state of affairs.
犯罪行为可以是作为、不作为（有义务时）或状态性犯罪。
Mens rea includes intention, recklessness, negligence, or strict liability situations.
犯罪心态包括故意、轻率、过失或严格责任情形。
Common defences: self‑defence, duress, insanity, automatism, intoxication.
常见抗辩：自我防卫、胁迫、精神错乱、无意识行为、醉酒。

2. Negligence – Caparo Three‑Stage Test | 过失侵权 – Caparo 三步检验

Duty of Care = (Foreseeability + Proximity) & Fair, Just and Reasonable

To establish negligence, the claimant must show that the defendant owed a duty of care using the Caparo test from Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990].

要证明过失侵权，原告必须依据 Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 案确立的 Caparo 检验，证明被告负有注意义务。

Step 步骤	Question 问题
1. Foreseeability 可预见性	Was harm to the claimant reasonably foreseeable? 对原告的损害是否可合理预见？
2. Proximity 近邻性	Was there a relationship of sufficient closeness between the parties? 当事人之间是否存在足够密切的关系？
3. Fair, just and reasonable 公平、公正且合理	Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty? 施加注意义务是否公平、公正且合理？

Once a duty is established, breach and causation must also be proved:

一旦确立了注意义务，还需证明义务的违反及因果关系：

Negligence = Duty + Breach + Causation + Damage

Breach is assessed by the reasonable person test: did the defendant fail to act as a reasonable person would in those circumstances? Causation involves factual causation (the ‘but for’ test) and legal causation (the damage must not be too remote).

违反义务通过“合理人”标准评估：被告是否未能像一个合理人在同等情况下那样行事？因果关系包括事实因果关系（“若无则不”检验）和法律因果关系（损害不得过于遥远）。

3. Contract Formation | 合同成立定理

Contract = Offer + Acceptance + Consideration + Intention to Create Legal Relations

A legally binding contract requires a clear offer, unconditional acceptance, valuable consideration (something of value exchanged), and an intention by both parties to enter legal relations. Social and domestic arrangements usually lack this intention, while commercial agreements are presumed to have it.

一份具有法律约束力的合同需要明确的要约、无条件的承诺、有价值的对价（交换的有价值之物），以及双方当事人建立法律关系的意图。社交与家庭安排通常缺乏此意图，而商业协议则推定具有该意图。

Offer can be bilateral or unilateral; must be distinguished from invitation to treat (e.g., goods on display).
要约可为双务或单务；必须与要约邀请（例如陈列商品）区分开来。
Acceptance must mirror the offer; communicated (or by conduct); postal rule may apply.
承诺必须与要约内容一致；须传达（或通过行为）；邮寄规则可能适用。
Consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate; past consideration is not good consideration.
对价必须充分但无需等值；过去的对价不是有效对价。

4. Murder – Actus Reus and Mens Rea | 谋杀罪 – 犯罪行为与犯罪心态

Murder = Unlawful Killing of a Human Being + Under the Queen’s Peace + Malice Aforethought

Murder is a common law offence. The actus reus is the unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being under the Queen’s (or King’s) peace. The mens rea is malice aforethought, which means intention to kill or intention to cause grievous bodily harm (GBH).

谋杀是一项普通法罪行。犯罪行为是在女王（或国王）和平秩序下非法杀害一个有生命的自然人。犯罪心态是具有恶意预谋，即意图杀人或意图造成严重身体伤害。

A person is still liable if the victim dies within a year and a day of the injury (Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996). Intention can be direct or oblique (if death or GBH was a virtual certainty and the defendant foresaw it, per R v Woollin).

如果受害人在受伤后一年零一天内死亡，行为人仍须负责（根据《1996年法律改革（一年零一天规则）法令》）。故意可以是直接的，也可以是间接的（如果死亡或严重身体伤害是虚拟必然结果且被告预见到，根据 R v Woollin 案）。

5. Voluntary Manslaughter – Partial Defences | 非预谋杀人 – 部分抗辩事由

Voluntary Manslaughter = Murder – (Diminished Responsibility or Loss of Control or Suicide Pact)

Voluntary manslaughter arises when the defendant would be guilty of murder but a partial defence reduces liability. These defences are set out in the Homicide Act 1957 and Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

当被告本应构成谋杀罪但因存在部分抗辩而减轻责任时，即构成非预谋杀人。这些抗辩规定在《1957年杀人罪法》和《2009年死因裁判官与司法法》中。

Diminished Responsibility (s.2 HA 1957): abnormality of mental functioning arising from a recognised medical condition, substantially impairing D’s ability to understand conduct, form rational judgment, or exercise self‑control, which provides an explanation for the killing.
减轻责任（1957年法第2条）：由于公认的医疗状况引起的精神功能异常，严重损害了被告理解行为、作出理性判断或行使自我控制的能力，并且这为杀人提供了说明。
Loss of Control (ss.54–55 CJA 2009): D must lose self‑control because of a qualifying trigger (fear of serious violence or things said/done of an extremely grave character causing a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged), and a person of D’s sex and age with normal tolerance and self‑restraint might have acted similarly.
失去控制（2009年法第54-55条）：被告必须因合格触发因素（对严重暴力的恐惧，或所说所做之事性质极其严重且引起被严重冤屈的正当感受）而失去自我控制，并且一个具有正常容忍度和自控力、同性别同年龄的人可能作出类似行为。

6. Theft – Definition Under s.1 Theft Act 1968 | 盗窃罪 – 1968年盗窃罪法第1条定义

Theft = Dishonest Appropriation + Property + Belonging to Another + Intention to Permanently Deprive

The Theft Act 1968 provides a clear, five‑element definition. All elements must be satisfied simultaneously. Even temporary deprivation can amount to theft if D treats the property as his own regardless of the owner’s rights (e.g., switching price labels: R v Morris).

《1968年盗窃罪法》提供了一个清晰的五要素定义。所有要素必须同时满足。如果被告将财产视为自己所有而漠视物主权利，即使是暂时剥夺也可能构成盗窃（例如掉换价格标签：R v Morris 案）。

Element 要素	Explanation 解释
Appropriation 侵占	Any assumption of the rights of an owner (s.3). Includes taking possession or later keeping property.
Property 财产	Money, real property, personal property, things in action, and other intangible property (s.4).
Belonging to another 属于他人	Property is regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control, or a proprietary right (s.5).
Dishonesty 不诚实	Now tested by Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017]: (1) what was D’s actual state of knowledge or belief as to the facts; (2) was his conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people?
Intention to permanently deprive 永久剥夺意图	Treating the property as his own regardless of owner’s rights; includes borrowing that makes the property virtually valueless (s.6).

7. Non‑Fatal Offences Against the Person | 非致命人身侵害罪

Most non‑fatal offences are in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA 1861). The key ladder of liability, from least to most serious, is:

大多数非致命罪行规定在《1861年人身侵害罪行法》中。从轻到重的责任阶梯如下：

Assault / Battery (Common Law) → s.47 ABH → s.20 GBH (Malicious Wounding) → s.18 GBH with Intent

Offence 罪行	Actus Reus 犯罪行为	Mens Rea 犯罪心态
Assault 威胁	Causing victim to apprehend immediate unlawful force.	Intention or recklessness as to causing such apprehension.
Battery 殴打	Infliction of unlawful force.	Intention or recklessness as to the application of force.
s.47 ABH 实际身体伤害	Assault or battery causing actual bodily harm (includes psychiatric injury).	Same as assault or battery; no need to intend ABH.
s.20 GBH 恶意重伤	Unlawful wounding or infliction of grievous bodily harm.	Malice – intention or recklessness as to some harm (not necessarily serious).
s.18 GBH with intent 故意重伤	Wounding or causing GBH with intent (previously ‘unlawfully and maliciously’).	Specific intent to cause GBH, or intent to resist/prevent arrest while reckless as to GBH.

Remember the difference: s.47 only requires the basic mens rea of assault or battery; a thin skull rule applies (defendant takes victim as found). s.20 requires proof of ‘malice’ (recklessness as to some harm), while s.18 requires specific intention.

记住区别：s.47 只要求威胁或殴打的基本犯罪心态；薄颅骨规则适用（被告须接受被害人现状）。s.20 需要证明“恶意”（对某些伤害的轻率），而 s.18 需要特定意图。

8. Self‑Defence / Prevention of Crime | 自我防卫 / 预防犯罪

Self‑Defence = (Honest Belief in Necessity) + Reasonable Force

A defendant may use force to protect themselves or another, or to prevent crime (s.3 Criminal Law Act 1967). The key two‑stage test comes from R v Owino [1996] and R v Palmer [1971]:

被告可使用武力保护自己或他人，或为预防犯罪（《1967年刑法法》第3条）。关键的两步检验来自 R v Owino [1996] 和 R v Palmer [1971] 案：

Subjective: Did the defendant genuinely believe it was necessary to use force? The belief need only be honest, even if mistaken (but not if mistaken due to voluntary intoxication).
主观方面：被告是否真诚地相信有必要使用武力？该信念只需诚实，即使有误也可（但因自愿醉酒导致的错误除外）。
Objective: Was the amount of force used reasonable in the circumstances as D honestly believed them to be? The jury must not judge with excessive hindsight. Force may be disproportionate in a ‘householder case’ (s.76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008) only if it is grossly disproportionate.
客观方面：在被告诚实相信的情境下，使用的武力是否合理？陪审团不得用过度的后见之明评判。在“住户案件”中，若武力明显过度，才不属合理（《2008年刑事司法与移民法》第76条）。

9. Strict Liability – Form & Rationale | 严格责任 – 形式与原理

Strict Liability = Actus Reus Only (No Mens Rea Needed for at Least One Element)

Strict liability offences require the prosecution to prove only the actus reus; mens rea is not required for at least one element. These are usually regulatory offences (e.g., road traffic, food safety, pollution) where Parliament prioritises public protection. The leading case is Sweet v Parsley [1970]. The presumption of mens rea can be rebutted by clear statutory language or the nature of the offence.

严格责任罪行只要求控方证明犯罪行为；至少一个要素无需证明犯罪心态。这类通常是监管性犯罪（例如道路交通、食品安全、污染），议会以保护公众为首要目的。主导案例是 Sweet v Parsley [1970]。犯罪心态的推定可通过明确的法律语言或罪行性质予以推翻。

10. Vicarious Liability | 替代责任公式

Employer’s Liability = Tort Committed by Employee + In the Course of Employment

An employer can be held vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee if the tort occurs during the course of employment. ‘Course of employment’ includes acts done in an authorised way (even if negligently) and, recently, acts that are closely connected to the employment relationship (Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001]). Independent contractors usually fall outside this rule, unless non‑delegable duties or agency relationships exist.

如果雇员在雇佣过程中实施了侵权行为，雇主可被追究替代责任。“雇佣过程”包括以授权方式实施的（即使是过失）行为，以及近年来认为与雇佣关系密切联系的行为（Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001]）。独立承包商通常不在此规则范围内，除非存在不可转托的义务或代理关系。

11. Key Latin Maxims | 重要拉丁文法律格言

Latin maxims summarise centuries of legal thought. Here are the most exam‑relevant:

拉丁文法律格言概括了数个世纪的法律思想。以下是与考试最相关的：

Maxim 格言	Meaning 含义
Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea	The act is not guilty unless the mind is also guilty. 行为不构成犯罪，除非心态也有罪。
Ignorantia juris non excusat	Ignorance of the law is no excuse. 不知法律不能作为借口。
Volenti non fit injuria	To a willing person, injury is not done (defence of consent). 对自愿者不构成伤害（同意抗辩）。
Res ipsa loquitur	The thing speaks for itself (inference of negligence). 事实本身说明（过失推定）。
Novus actus interveniens	A new intervening act breaks the chain of causation. 新的介入行为中断因果关系链条。
Actus Dei (or vis major)	Act of God – unforeseeable natural event breaking causation. 不可抗力 – 不可预见的自然事件中断因果关系。

12. Criminal Liability Flowchart | 刑事责任流程图

Use this step‑by‑step approach for any problem question:

解决任何案例题均可使用这一逐步分析法：

Identify Offence → AR → MR → Coincidence? → Defences? → Conclusion

Identify the most serious possible offence. 识别最严重的可能罪名。
State and apply the actus reus elements. 陈述并适用犯罪行为要素。
State and apply the mens rea elements (intention/recklessness/negligence). 陈述并适用犯罪心态要素（故意/轻率/过失）。
Confirm coincidence of actus reus and mens rea. 确认犯罪行为与犯罪心态同时发生。
Raise any relevant complete or partial defences. 提出任何相关的完全或部分抗辩。
Reach a reasoned conclusion on liability. 就责任作出有论证的结论。
Consider less serious alternative offences. 考虑较轻的替代罪名。

Published by TutorHao | Law Revision Series | aleveler.com

更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）

Legal Formulae & Maxims Quick Reference | 法律公式定理速查手册