📚 AQA A-Level Law Year 13 Key Terminology Memory Guide | AQA A-Level 法律 13年级核心术语速记指南
Mastering legal terminology is essential for success in AQA A-Level Law. This guide breaks down the most critical terms from the Year 13 specification into clear, memorable definitions, paired with contextual examples. Each term is presented in English followed by Chinese to accelerate bilingual comprehension and retention, ideal for both native and EAL learners aiming for top marks in essays and scenario questions.
掌握法律术语是AQA A-Level法律成功的关键。本指南将13年级考纲中最关键的术语拆解为清晰易记的定义，并配以语境实例。每个术语以英文和中文双语呈现，加速双语理解与记忆，非常适合追求高分论文和情景题表现的母语者与英语附加语言学习者。
1. Actus Reus | 犯罪行为
Actus reus refers to the physical element of a crime. It can be an act, an omission where a duty exists, or a state of affairs. For liability, the actus reus must be voluntary.
犯罪行为（Actus reus）指犯罪的客观要素。它可以是一个行为、存在义务时的不作为，或某种状态。要构成责任，犯罪行为必须是自愿的。
- Examples: striking a victim (act), failing to feed a child (omission), being found drunk in a public place (state of affairs).
- 例子：击打受害人（行为），未能喂养孩子（不作为），在公共场所被发现醉酒（状态）。
2. Mens Rea | 犯罪意图
Mens rea is the mental element of a crime. It includes intention (direct or oblique), recklessness, negligence, and knowledge. Different offences require different levels of mens rea.
犯罪意图（Mens rea）是犯罪的主观要素，包括故意（直接或间接）、轻率、过失和明知。不同的罪名要求不同程度的犯罪意图。
- Direct intent: D desires a result. Oblique intent: result is a virtual certainty and D appreciates that.
- 直接故意：被告追求某一结果。间接故意：结果几乎是必然发生的，且被告认识到这一点。
3. Causation | 因果关系
Causation links the defendant’s conduct to the result. It requires both factual causation (‘but for’ test) and legal causation (the act must be a substantial and operating cause of the harm, with no intervening act breaking the chain).
因果关系将被告的行为与结果联系起来。它要求同时满足事实因果关系（“若非”检验）和法律因果关系（行为必须是损害实质且有效的原因，且无中断链条的介入行为）。
- Factual: ‘But for the defendant’s act, would the result have occurred anyway?’ – R v White.
- 事实：“若非被告的行为，结果是否仍会发生？” – 怀特案。
- Legal: The injury must be a substantial cause (R v Hughes) and operative (R v Smith).
- 法律：伤害必须是实质性原因（休斯案）且持续起作用（史密斯案）。
4. Murder and Partial Defences | 谋杀与部分辩护理由
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen’s Peace with malice aforethought. Partial defences reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter: diminished responsibility, loss of control, and suicide pact.
谋杀是在女王治下和平中带有恶意预谋的非法杀人。部分辩护理由可将谋杀减轻为非预谋杀人：减轻责任、失控和自杀协定。
- Diminished responsibility: abnormality of mental functioning arising from a recognised medical condition that substantially impairs D’s ability (s.2 Homicide Act 1957, amended by s.52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009).
- 减轻责任：源于公认医疗状况的精神功能异常，实质性损害被告的能力（1957年《杀人法》第2条，经2009年《死因裁判官和司法法》第52条修订）。
- Loss of control: D lost self-control due to a qualifying trigger; a person of D’s sex and age with a normal degree of tolerance might have reacted similarly (s.54-55).
- 失控：被告因适格触发因素丧失自控；与被告同性别同年龄且具有正常容忍度的人可能做出类似反应（第54-55条）。
5. Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person | 针对人身的非致命犯罪
These include assault, battery, assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH), malicious wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm (GBH) under s.20, and wounding/causing GBH with intent under s.18.
这些犯罪包括企图伤害、殴击、造成实际身体伤害的企图伤害（ABH）、第20条下的恶意伤害或造成严重身体伤害（GBH），以及第18条下的蓄意伤害/造成GBH。
- Battery: unlawful application of force, can be very minor (Collins v Wilcock).
- 殴击：非法施力，可以极其轻微（柯林斯诉威尔科克案）。
- s.20 GBH: maliciously wounding or inflicting GBH – ‘maliciously’ means intention or recklessness.
- 第20条GBH：恶意伤害或造成GBH – “恶意”指故意或轻率。
6. Theft and Property Offences | 盗窃罪与财产犯罪
Theft is defined in s.1 Theft Act 1968: dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with intention to permanently deprive. Each element must be proved, including the partial definition of dishonesty under s.2 and the test in Ivey v Genting Casinos.
盗窃罪定义于1968年《盗窃法》第1条：不诚实地占有他人财产，并意图永久剥夺。每个要素均须证明，包括第2条下不诚实的部分定义以及艾维诉云顶赌场案中的检验标准。
- Appropriation: any assumption of the rights of an owner (R v Morris).
- 占有：对所有者任何权利的行使（莫里斯案）。
- Property: includes money, personal property, things in action, intangible property (Oxford v Moss).
- 财产：包括金钱、动产、诉讼物、无形资产（牛津诉莫斯案）。
7. Duty of Care in Negligence | 过失侵权中的注意义务
Negligence requires a duty of care, breach of that duty, and damage caused by the breach. The duty is established using the Caparo three-part test: foreseeability, proximity, and whether it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty.
过失侵权要求存在注意义务、违反该义务，以及因违反造成的损害。注意义务通过卡帕罗三要件检验确定：可预见性、近邻关系，以及施加义务是否公平、公正且合理。
- Neighbour principle from Donoghue v Stevenson: duty to persons so closely affected by your acts that you should have them in contemplation.
- 邻居原则来自多诺霍诉史蒂文森案：对因你的行为受到直接影响、你应考虑到的人负有义务。
- Caparo Industries plc v Dickman added structure to existing law.
- 卡帕罗工业公司诉迪克曼案为现有法律增加了结构。
8. Breach of Duty and Standard of Care | 违反义务与注意标准
Breach occurs when D falls below the standard of the reasonable person. The standard is objective, but special factors apply for professionals (Bolam test), learners (same standard as competent), and children (age-adjusted).
当被告行为低于合理人的标准时，即构成违反义务。该标准是客观的，但专业人员的特殊因素适用（博拉姆检验）、学习者（与合格者相同标准）、儿童（依年龄调整）。
- Bolam test: a professional is not negligent if they acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical opinion.
- 博拉姆检验：专业人员若按照一个负责任的医学界认为适当的做法行事，便不构成过失。
- Risk factors: likelihood of harm, seriousness of harm, cost of precautions, social utility (Roe v Minister of Health).
- 风险因素：损害可能性、损害严重性、预防措施成本、社会效用（罗诉卫生部案）。
9. Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 & 1984 | 1957年与1984年占用人责任法
The 1957 Act protects lawful visitors. Occupiers owe a common duty of care to see that visitors are reasonably safe. The 1984 Act grants limited protection to trespassers where the occupier is aware of the danger and the trespasser is at risk.
1957年法律保护合法访客。占用人负有一项共同注意义务，确保访客合理安全。1984年法律在占用人知悉危险且侵入者面临风险时，给予侵入者有限保护。
- Visitor: express or implied permission, including contractual visitors.
- 访客：明示或默示许可，包括合同访客。
- 1984 Act key elements: occupier aware of danger; reasonable grounds to believe trespasser is near; risk is one against which occupier should reasonably offer protection.
- 1984年法律关键要素：占用人知悉危险；有合理理由相信侵入者可能在附近；风险是占用人理应提供保护的风险。
10. Strict Liability in Tort and Crime | 侵权与刑法中的严格责任
Strict liability means liability without proof of fault. In tort, it applies to things like escape of dangerous things (Rylands v Fletcher) and certain statutory regimes. In criminal law, strict liability offences require no mens rea for at least one element, often for regulatory matters.
严格责任意味着无需证明过错即可归责。在侵权法中，它适用于危险物逸出（赖兰兹诉弗莱彻案）及特定法定制度。在刑法中，严格责任犯罪至少一个要素无需犯罪意图，通常见于监管事务。
- Rylands v Fletcher: D brings, accumulates, non-natural use, escape, mischief, damage – defences include act of God, consent.
- 赖兰兹诉弗莱彻案：被告带入、积聚、非自然使用、逸出、灾祸、损害 – 抗辩包括不可抗力、同意。
- Criminal strict liability often used for public safety, e.g., food safety, pollution – Callow v Tillstone, Sweet v Parsley.
- 刑事严格责任通常服务于公共安全，如食品安全、污染 – 卡洛诉蒂尔斯通案，斯威特诉帕斯利案。
11. Vicarious Liability | 替代责任
Vicarious liability imposes liability on an employer for torts committed by an employee during the course of employment. The modern test requires a relationship akin to employment and a sufficiently close connection between the wrongful act and the employment.
替代责任将雇员在雇佣过程中实施的侵权行为归责于雇主。现代检验标准要求存在类似雇佣的关系，且不当行为与雇佣之间存在足够密切的联系。
- Old test: ‘Salmond’ test – authorised act or wrongful mode of authorised act.
- 旧标准：“萨尔蒙德”检验 – 授权行为或授权行为的不当实施方式。
- Modern approach: Lister v Hesley Hall, followed by Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society, Cox v Ministry of Justice.
- 现代方法：利斯特诉赫斯利堂案，以及各种诉天主教儿童福利协会案，考克斯诉司法部案。
12. Defences in Tort and Crime | 侵权与刑法中的抗辩事由
A range of defences may fully or partially absolve liability. Key defences include consent (volenti non fit injuria), contributory negligence, illegality, self-defence, duress, necessity, and automatism (in crime). Each has specific elements and limitations.
一系列抗辩事由可以完全或部分免除责任。关键抗辩包括同意（自愿承受伤害）、与有过失、违法性、自卫、胁迫、紧急避险和（刑事）自动症。每种均有特定要素与限制。
- Consent in tort: claimant freely agreed to take the risk (Dann v Hamilton). Not available for strict liability in Rylands.
- 侵权中的同意：索赔人自愿同意承担风险（丹恩诉汉密尔顿案）。不适用于赖兰兹案中的严格责任。
- Self-defence: proportionate force as honestly believed necessary (s.76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008).
- 自卫：诚实相信必要的、相称的武力（2008年《刑事司法和移民法》第76条）。
Published by TutorHao | Law 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