📚 Year 10 CAIE Law: Complete Syllabus Breakdown | Year 10 CAIE 法律：课程大纲全面解析
Year 10 CAIE Law offers students a foundational understanding of the English legal system and key areas of substantive law. This syllabus breakdown outlines the core topics typically covered in the first year of the IGCSE Law (0985) course, helping you navigate criminal, tort, contract, and human rights law with confidence. Each section is explained in a clear, exam-focused manner to support your revision and classroom learning.
Year 10 CAIE 法律课程为学生提供了对英国法律体系及核心实体法领域的基础性理解。本大纲解析概述了 IGCSE 法律（0985）第一年通常涵盖的核心主题，帮助你自信地掌握刑法、侵权法、合同法和人权法。每一部分都以清晰、贴近考试的方式解释，以支持你的复习和课堂学习。
1. Course Overview and Aims | 课程概览与目标
The CAIE IGCSE Law course (0985) is designed to give students a broad introduction to the role of law in today’s society. By the end of Year 10, you should understand the main sources of English law, the court structure, and the basic principles of criminal and civil liability. The course develops skills of legal analysis, problem-solving, and evaluation of real-life scenarios.
CAIE IGCSE 法律课程（0985）旨在让学生对法律在当今社会中的作用有一个全面的了解。到 Year 10 结束时，你应能理解英国法律的主要渊源、法院结构以及刑事和民事责任的基本原则。本课程培养法律分析、解决问题和评价现实情境的技能。
The Year 10 syllabus typically focuses on building the theoretical groundwork: the nature of law, the legislative process, judicial precedent, and the essentials of the English legal system. Substantive topics such as non-fatal offences, theft, negligence, and contract formation are introduced and explored through case studies and statutory interpretation.
Year 10 大纲通常侧重于构建理论基础：法律的本质、立法程序、司法先例以及英格兰法律体系的基本要素。通过案例研究和法条解释，引入并探讨了非致命犯罪、盗窃、过失侵权和合同订立等实体法主题。
Assessment for CAIE IGCSE Law includes two written examination papers taken at the end of the course. Year 10 serves to cover the knowledge and skills needed for Paper 1 (Legal System and Criminal Law) and the first half of Paper 2 (Civil Law topics), setting a strong foundation for Year 11.
CAIE IGCSE 法律的评估包括课程结束时的两场笔试。Year 10 负责覆盖试卷一（法律体系与刑法）所需的知识和技能，以及试卷二（民法主题）的前半部分，为 Year 11 打下坚实基础。
2. The Nature and Sources of Law | 法律的本质与渊源
Law is a set of rules created by the state to regulate behaviour and maintain order. In England and Wales, the principal sources of law are Acts of Parliament (statute law) and case law (common law and equity). You will learn how these sources interact and how judges interpret and apply them in courts.
法律是国家为规范行为和维持秩序而制定的一套规则。在英格兰和威尔士，法律的主要渊源是议会法案（成文法）和判例法（普通法和衡平法）。你将学习这些渊源如何相互作用，以及法官如何在法庭上解释和适用它们。
Statute law is created through the legislative process: a Bill passes through the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and receives Royal Assent. Delegated legislation, such as Orders in Council and by-laws, allows other bodies to make law under Parliament’s authority. The doctrine of parliamentary supremacy means that no Parliament can bind its successors, and courts cannot strike down primary legislation.
成文法通过立法程序制定：法案经过下议院、上议院审议并获得御准。委任立法，如枢密院令和地方法规，允许其他机构在议会授权下制定法律。议会至上原则意味着任何一届议会都不能约束其后届，法院也不能推翻主要立法。
Common law is judge-made law developed through precedents. The doctrine of stare decisis requires lower courts to follow the decisions of higher courts in similar cases. The Supreme Court replaced the House of Lords as the highest court in 2009, and its rulings bind all other courts. The Court of Appeal must follow its own past decisions with limited exceptions.
普通法是由法官通过先例发展起来的法律。遵循先例原则要求下级法院遵循上级法院在相似案件中的判决。最高法院于2009年取代上议院成为最高审判机关，其裁决对所有其他法院具有约束力。上诉法院在有限例外情况下也必须遵守其过去的判决。
Equity developed historically to provide remedies where the common law was too rigid. Equitable maxims like ‘He who comes to equity must come with clean hands’ still guide courts today, and equitable remedies such as injunctions and specific performance remain important in civil law.
衡平法在历史上发展起来，用以在普通法过于僵化时提供救济。衡平法格言，如“走进衡平者必须自身清白”，至今仍指导着法院，而禁令和特定履行等衡平法救济在民法中依然重要。
3. The English Legal System | 英国法律体系
The English legal system is divided into civil and criminal courts, each with its own hierarchy and method of resolving disputes. You need to understand the jurisdiction of each court, the roles of legal professionals, and the avenues of appeal.
英国法律体系分为民事和刑事法院，各自拥有层级和争议解决方法。你需要了解每个法院的管辖权、法律专业人士的角色以及上诉途径。
In criminal law, cases begin in the Magistrates’ Court for most summary offences and either-way offences where the defendant chooses summary trial. Serious indictable offences go straight to the Crown Court. The Crown Court also hears cases committed for sentence by magistrates. Appeals on points of law go from the Magistrates’ Court to the High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) by way of case stated. From the Crown Court, defendants can appeal to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) with leave, and finally to the Supreme Court on a point of law of general public importance.
在刑法中，大多数简易罪行和被告人选择简易审判的可选择审判罪行由治安法庭开始审理。严重的可公诉罪行直接由刑事法院审理。刑事法院也审理治安法官移送量刑的案件。就法律问题提起的上诉通过案件陈述方式从治安法庭提交高等法院（王座分庭）。从刑事法院，被告人经批准可上诉至上诉法院（刑事审判庭），最终可就具有普遍公共重要性的法律问题上诉至最高法院。
Civil courts include the County Court for most claims up to a certain value, and the High Court (King’s Bench, Chancery, and Family Divisions) for higher value and more complex cases. Appeals generally go to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) and then to the Supreme Court. Alternative dispute resolution methods like negotiation, mediation, and arbitration are also highlighted in the syllabus as ways to avoid court.
民事法院包括处理一定金额以下大部分索赔的郡法院，以及处理更高价值和更复杂案件的高等法院（王座庭、大法官庭和家事庭）。上诉通常提交上诉法院（民事审判庭），然后至最高法院。替代性争议解决方法，如谈判、调解和仲裁，在课程大纲中也被作为避免诉讼的方式加以强调。
Legal personnel include solicitors who provide direct client advice and barristers who represent clients in higher courts. Judges are appointed from experienced legal practitioners. The syllabus expects you to compare the training and roles of these professionals and evaluate the effectiveness of the court system.
法律专业人员包括直接为客户提供咨询的事务律师和在高级法院出庭代理的出庭律师。法官从经验丰富的法律执业者中任命。大纲要求你比较这些专业人员的培训和角色，并评估法院体系的有效性。
4. Criminal Law: General Principles | 刑法总论：一般原则
A crime is an act prohibited by law and punishable by the state. To establish criminal liability, the prosecution must prove both the actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind) beyond reasonable doubt, unless the offence is one of strict liability.
犯罪是法律禁止并可由国家惩罚的行为。要确定刑事责任，除非是严格责任犯罪，否则控方必须排除合理怀疑地证明犯罪行为（actus reus）和犯罪心态（mens rea）。
Actus reus can be an act, a failure to act (omission) where a legal duty exists, or a state of affairs. For example, an omission to provide life-saving care can be criminal where the defendant has a duty arising from a special relationship, a contract, or voluntarily undertaking responsibility. The act or omission must be voluntary.
犯罪行为可以是行为，法律义务存在时的不作为（疏忽），或某种状态。例如，当被告基于特殊关系、合同或自愿承担责任而有义务时，不提供救命照料的不作为可能构成犯罪。行为或不作为必须是自愿的。
Mens rea refers to the mental element of the crime. The main types are intention (direct or oblique) and recklessness (as defined in R v Cunningham: awareness of an unjustifiable risk and going ahead to take it anyway). In some statutory offences, negligence or no mens rea (strict liability) is required. The case of R v Woolin clarified that a defendant may be found to have intended a result if it was a virtual certainty and the defendant appreciated that it was.
犯罪心态指犯罪的心理要素。主要类型包括故意（直接或间接）和轻率（根据 R v Cunningham 定义：意识到不合理风险却仍然冒此风险）。在某些法定罪行中，要求的是过失或无犯罪心态（严格责任）。R v Woolin 案阐明，如果某一结果实质上必然发生且被告意识到这一点，则可认定被告意图该结果。
Causation links the actus reus to the result. Factual causation uses the ‘but for’ test, while legal causation requires that the defendant’s act was the operating and substantial cause of the consequence. Intervening acts (novus actus interveniens) like a third party’s medical negligence will only break the chain of causation if they are so independent and potent that the original act becomes merely part of the background.
因果关系将犯罪行为与结果联系起来。事实因果采用“若无则不”标准，而法律因果要求被告的行为是后果的有效且实质性原因。介入行为（novus actus interveniens），如第三方的医疗过失，只有在足够独立且作用强大到使初始行为仅成为背景的一部分时，才打破因果链条。
5. Non-fatal Offences Against the Person | 非致命人身伤害犯罪
A core part of Year 10 criminal law involves the hierarchy of non-fatal offences, primarily governed by the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and common law. These offences are distinguished by the level of injury caused and the mens rea required.
Year 10 刑法的一个核心部分涉及非致命犯罪层级，主要由1861年《人身犯罪法》和普通法规制。这些罪行根据造成的伤害程度和所需的犯罪心态进行区分。
| Offence | Actus Reus | Mens Rea | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Assault | Causing victim to apprehend immediate unlawful force | Intention or recklessness | Common law |
| Battery | Infliction of unlawful force | Intention or recklessness | Common law |
| Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) | Assault or battery causing harm that is more than transient or trifling | Intention or recklessness as to assault/battery (no need for mens rea as to harm) | s.47 OAPA 1861 |
| Malicious wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm (GBH) | A wound (break in both layers of skin) or really serious harm | Malice (intention or recklessness as to some harm) | s.20 OAPA 1861 |
| Wounding or causing GBH with intent | Same as s.20 | Intention to cause GBH or resist arrest (specific intent) | s.18 OAPA 1861 |
Assault and battery are the least serious but most common. An assault can be committed by words or silence, as recognised in R v Ireland, where silent phone calls caused the victim to fear immediate violence. Battery requires actual physical contact, even if minimal, such as touching a person’s clothing. Consent is a defence, but consent is vitiated where the harm is above ABH and not in a recognised category like sport or surgery.
威胁和殴打是最轻微但也最常见的。威胁可通过言语或沉默实施，正如 R v Ireland 案所确认的，无声电话让受害者担心即时的暴力。殴打要求实际的身体接触，哪怕很小，比如触碰他人衣物。同意可作为抗辩，但在伤害超过实际身体伤害且不属于体育或手术等公认类别的情况下，同意无效。
A key case for s.47 ABH is R v Chan-Fook, which held that psychiatric injury can amount to bodily harm, but mere emotions such as fear or panic are insufficient. For s.20 GBH, the word ‘inflict’ in the Act means the defendant’s conduct must cause the wound or GBH; it is not limited to an assault. The leading case R v Burstow confirmed that severe psychological injury can be grievous bodily harm. Section 18 carries a maximum life sentence due to its specific intent requirement.
关于第47条实际身体伤害的一个重要案例是 R v Chan-Fook，该案认为精神伤害可构成身体伤害，但仅仅恐惧或恐慌等情绪不够。对于第20条严重身体伤害，法条中“造成”一词意指被告的行为必须导致创伤或严重身体伤害，不限于殴打。指导案例 R v Burstow 确认严重心理伤害可构成严重身体伤害。第18条因其有特定故意要求而最高可判终身监禁。
6. Property Offences: Theft and Robbery | 财产犯罪：盗窃与抢劫
Theft is defined in s.1(1) of the Theft Act 1968 as the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. All five elements must be proved: appropriation, property, belonging to another, dishonesty, and intention to permanently deprive.
盗窃的定义在1968年《盗窃法》第1(1)条中：以据为己有为目的，不诚实地挪用属于他人的财产。必须证明全部五个要素：挪用、财产、属于他人、不诚实和永久剥夺的意图。
Appropriation means any assumption of the owner’s rights, and can even include taking a gift from a shop where the donor does not consent to that particular act (R v Hinks). For property, almost anything tangible and intangible can be subject to theft, but wild plants generally are not, unless taken commercially. Belonging to another includes possession, control, or any proprietary interest. A person can steal their own property if another has a superior right to its possession at that time.
挪用意味着行使了所有者的任何权利，甚至可以包括从商店拿走一份赠予物品而赠予人并未同意该特定行为（R v Hinks）。就财产而言，几乎任何有形和无形物品都可成为盗窃客体，但野生植物一般不在此列，除非以商业目的获取。属于他人包括占有、控制或任何财产权益。如果当时他人对财产的占有权优先，一个人甚至可以偷窃自己的财产。
Dishonesty is partially defined in s.2 of the Theft Act, which lists situations when a defendant is not dishonest, such as a genuine belief in a legal right to deprive the owner. The common law test in Ivey v Genting Casinos, now the standard for criminal law, asks (1) what were the defendant’s actual knowledge or belief as to the facts? and (2) was that conduct honest or dishonest by the objective standards of ordinary decent people?
不诚实部分由《盗窃法》第2条界定，列举了被告不算不诚实的情况，例如真诚地相信有合法权利剥夺所有者。普通法上 Ivey v Genting Casinos 案的测试标准如今为刑法所使用，它问：(1) 被告对事实的实际认识或相信是什么？(2) 根据普通正派人的客观标准，该行为是诚实的还是不诚实的？
Intention to permanently deprive means treating the property as one’s own regardless of the owner’s rights. It includes borrowing only if the property is returned in such a changed state that it has lost its practical value, as in R v Lloyd involving cinema films.
永久剥夺的意图意味着将财产视为己有而无视所有者的权利。仅在归还时财产已改变状态并失去实际价值的情况下，借用才被视为具有该意图，例如 R v Lloyd 涉及电影胶片的案件。
Robbery is defined in s.8 of the Theft Act 1968 as stealing and immediately before or at the time of doing so, using force on any person or putting them in fear of being then and there subjected to force. All elements of theft must exist. The force or threat must be used in order to steal, not simply to escape. The amount of force can be minimal.
抢劫由1968年《盗窃法》第8条定义为：在实施盗窃时或之前即刻，对任何人使用武力或使其当时在当地担心受到武力对待。必须存在盗窃的所有要素。使用武力或威胁必须是为了实施盗窃，而非仅仅为了逃跑。武力程度可以很轻微。
7. Tort Law: Negligence | 侵权法：过失侵权
Tort law provides civil remedies for wrongs that cause harm, with negligence being the most significant tort on the syllabus. For a successful claim, the claimant must establish (1) a duty of care, (2) breach of that duty, and (3) damage caused by the breach, both in fact and in law.
侵权法为造成损害的不法行为提供民事救济，其中过失侵权是课程大纲中最重要的侵权类型。要成功索赔，原告必须证明：(1) 注意义务，(2) 违反该义务，(3) 该违反行为所造成的损害，既包括事实因果也包括法律因果。
The duty of care is established using the neighbour principle from Donoghue v Stevenson: you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. The modern test from Caparo Industries v Dickman adds three steps: foreseeability of damage, proximity between the parties, and whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty. In many situations, such as motorists to other road users, duty is well-established and need not be analysed afresh.
注意义务根据 Donoghue v Stevenson 案确立的邻人原则：你必须采取合理注意以避免你能够合理预见可能会损害邻人的作为或不作为。来自 Caparo Industries v Dickman 的现代测试增加了三个步骤：损害的可预见性、当事人间的密切关系，以及施加义务是否公平、公正且合理。在许多情境中，如驾驶者对其他道路使用者，义务已明确，无需重新分析。
Breach occurs when the defendant falls below the standard of the reasonable person. Factors the court considers include: the likelihood of harm (low probability may justify lower precautions), the seriousness of foreseeable harm (more care for more serious injury), the cost and practicability of precautions, and any social utility of the defendant’s conduct. For professional defendants, the standard is that of a reasonably competent professional in that field (Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee).
当被告行为低于合理人标准时，即构成义务的违反。法院考虑的因素包括：损害发生的可能性（低概率可以证明较低预防措施的合理性）、可预见伤害的严重性（更严重伤害需更高注意）、预防措施的成本与可行性，以及被告行为的社会效用。对于专业人士被告，标准是该领域合理称职的专业人员（Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee）。
Causation requires proof that the breach caused the loss. Factual causation uses the ‘but for’ test: but for the defendant’s negligence, would the claimant have suffered the loss? Legal causation demands that the breach was an effective cause, not a mere background event. A new intervening act may break the chain. Remoteness of damage means the type of damage must be reasonably foreseeable, as established in The Wagon Mound (No.1).
因果关系要求证明违反义务行为导致了损失。事实因果采用“若无则不”测试：若非被告的过失，原告会遭受损失吗？法律因果要求该违反是有效原因，而不仅仅是背景事件。新的介入行为可能打断因果链条。损害遥远性意味着损害类型必须是可合理预见的，正如 The Wagon Mound (No.1) 案所确立。
Defences to negligence include contributory negligence (partial defence reducing damages when the claimant failed to take reasonable care for their own safety) and voluntary assumption of risk (volenti non fit injuria), where the claimant knowingly and willingly accepted the risk.
过失侵权的抗辩包括助成过失（当原告未能对自己的安全给予合理注意时，部分抗辩可减少赔偿），以及自愿承担风险（volenti non fit injuria），即原告知情且自愿接受了风险。
8. Contract Law: Essential Elements | 合同法的基本要素
Contract law forms the second major civil topic in Year 10. A valid contract requires offer, acceptance, consideration, intention to create legal relations, and certainty of terms. Understanding how these elements are established is fundamental to solving problem questions.
合同法是 Year 10 第二个主要的民法主题。一份有效合同需具备要约、承诺、对价、建立法律关系的意图及条款确定性。理解如何确立这些要素是解决案例题的基础。
An offer is a statement of willingness to be bound on specified terms made with the intention it will become binding upon acceptance. It must be distinguished from an invitation to treat, which is a preliminary stage inviting offers (e.g., goods displayed on a shelf: Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists). An offer can be terminated by revocation (must be communicated to the offeree), lapse of time, rejection, or death.
要约是一份表明愿意按特定条款受约束的意思表示，该意思表示旨在经承诺即产生约束力。它必须区别于要约邀请，后者是初步阶段，邀请对方提出要约（如货架上展示的商品：Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists 案）。要约可因撤回（必须传达给受要约人）、超过时限、拒绝或死亡而终止。
Acceptance must be a positive response to the offer, communicated to the offeror, and must mirror the offer’s terms. The postal rule is an exception: acceptance is effective when a letter is posted, even if it never arrives (Adams v Lindsell), provided the use of post was reasonable. Electronic communications are governed by the general rule that acceptance must be received, as per the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002.
承诺必须是对要约的肯定回应，传达给要约人，且完全符合要约的条款。邮寄规则是一个例外：承诺在信件投邮时生效，即使并未送达（Adams v Lindsell 案），但前提是使用邮寄方式合理。电子通信受一般规则调整，即承诺必须被收悉，依据2002年《电子商务（欧盟指令）条例》。
Consideration is the price paid for the promise. It must be sufficient but need not be adequate, cannot be past, and must move from the promisee. The rules on existing duties highlight that performance of a duty already owed under law or a contract is generally not good consideration for a new promise (Stilk v Myrick), unless practical benefit is conferred (Williams v Roffey Bros). The doctrine of promissory estoppel from Central London Property Trust v High Trees House provides a limited exception to prevent unfair enforcement of rights where a person relied on a promise.
对价是为允诺支付的对价。它必须充分但无需足够，不能是过去的，且必须来自受允诺人。现有义务规则强调，履行法律或合同上已负有的义务通常不能成为新允诺的有效对价（Stilk v Myrick 案），除非该履行带来了实际利益（Williams v Roffey Bros）。出自 Central London Property Trust v High Trees House 的允诺禁止反言原则提供了一个有限例外，以防止在某人依赖了允诺时不公平地执行权利。
Intention to create legal relations is presumed in commercial agreements but not in social or domestic ones. This presumption can be rebutted by strong evidence to the contrary. Certainty of essential terms, such as subject matter and price, is needed; otherwise, the agreement may be void for uncertainty.
建立法律关系的意图在商业协议中被推定，但社交或家庭协议通常不被推定。这一推定可被有力的相反证据推翻。诸如标的物和价格等必要条款需明确，否则协议可能因不确定性而无效。
9. Introduction to Human Rights Law | 人权法简介
The CAIE syllabus incorporates aspects of human rights law, chiefly through the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Students examine key rights, the role of the courts, and the balance between rights and state power.
CAIE 课程大纲纳入了人权法的各个方面，主要是通过1998年《人权法》和《欧洲人权公约》（ECHR）。学生要审视关键权利、法院的角色以及权利与国家权力之间的平衡。
The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated the ECHR into UK law, allowing individuals to bring cases in domestic courts. Key articles studied include Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of torture), Article 5 (right to liberty and security), Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 8 (right to private and family life), Article 10 (freedom of expression), and Article 11 (freedom of assembly). These rights are qualified; states can restrict them if it is prescribed by law, pursues a legitimate aim, and is necessary in a democratic society.
1998年《人权法》将《欧洲人权公约》纳入了英国法律，允许个人在国内法院提起诉讼。学习的关键条款包括：第2条（生命权）、第3条（禁止酷刑）、第5条（自由与安全权）、第6条（公正审判权）、第8条（私生活和家庭生活受尊重权）、第10条（言论自由）和第11条（集会自由）。这些权利是有条件的；若限制是法律规定的、追求合法目的且为民主社会所必需，国家可以加以限制。
Courts can issue a declaration of incompatibility under s.4 of the HRA if primary legislation conflicts with Convention rights, but this does not invalidate the Act; it places pressure on Parliament to amend the law. The right to a fair trial under Article 6 is particularly relevant to both criminal and civil procedure, ensuring access to justice, independence and impartiality of tribunals, and a hearing within a reasonable time.
根据《人权法》第4条，如果主要立法与公约权利相抵触，法院可以发出不一致宣告，但这并不使法案无效；它给议会施加修改法律的压力。第6条公正审判权对刑事和民事诉讼程序都特别重要，它确保司法可及、法庭的独立与公正以及合理时间内开展审理。
Case law examples like Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza illustrate how courts interpret statutes to make them compatible with Convention rights whenever possible, using s.3 interpretive obligation. The balance between Article 8 (privacy) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) is often debated in media and celebrity cases, with courts weighing the public interest in publication against the right to private life.
Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza 等案例阐释了法院如何使用第3条的解释义务，尽可能将法规解释得与公约权利相符。第8条（隐私）与第10条（言论自由）的平衡常在媒体和名人案件中被讨论，法院需权衡发表涉及公共利益的事项与私人生活权利。
10. Assessment, Revision, and Exam Skills | 评估、复习与应试技巧
Year 10 is a critical time to develop the skills necessary for CAIE IGCSE Law exams. Paper 1 (1 hour 30 minutes, 50% of total marks) tests the legal system and criminal law through short-answer questions and a scenario-based essay. Paper 2 (1 hour 30 minutes, 50%) covers civil law topics: tort, contract, and human rights, using similar question styles. Each paper includes compulsory questions requiring application of legal rules to given facts.
Year 10 是培养 CAIE IGCSE 法律考试所需技能的关键时期。试卷一（1小时30分钟，占总分50%）通过简答题和情景问答题测试法律体系和刑法。试卷二（1小时30分钟，50%）覆盖民法主题：侵权法、合同法和人权法，采用类似的题目风格。每份试卷均含必答题，要求将法律规则应用于给定事实。
Effective revision starts with mastering the definitions and elements of each crime and civil wrong. Flash cards for
Published by TutorHao | Year 10 法律 Revision Series | aleveler.com
更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）
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Cancel reply