Quick Memorisation Guide to Legal Terminology | 法律词汇术语速记指南

📚 Quick Memorisation Guide to Legal Terminology | 法律词汇术语速记指南

Understanding legal terminology is the foundation of success in CIE AS Law. This guide breaks down the most important concepts into memorable explanations and practical examples, helping you retain definitions, distinguish similar terms, and apply them accurately in exam scenarios.

理解法律术语是 CIE AS 法律成功的基础。本指南将最重要的概念分解为易记的讲解和实例，帮助你记住定义、区分相似术语，并在考试情境中准确应用。

1. Actus Reus (Guilty Act) | 犯罪行为

Actus reus refers to the external, physical element of a crime. It can be an act, a failure to act (omission), or a state of affairs. For most crimes, the actus reus must be a positive, voluntary act. A key memory trick: ‘Actus’ sounds like ‘act’ — you need an action (or legally recognised inaction) for criminal liability.

犯罪行为是指犯罪的外部物理要素。它可以是一个行为、一个不作为或一种状态。对于大多数罪行，犯罪行为必须是积极的、自愿的行为。记忆窍门：’Actus’ 听起来像 ‘act’（行动）——你需要一个行动（或法律认可的不作为）才能产生刑事责任。

Example: In theft, the actus reus is the appropriation of property belonging to another. The defendant must physically take the item or assume the rights of the owner.

例子：在盗窃中，犯罪行为是占有属于他人的财产。被告必须实际拿走物品或行使主人的权利。

Conduct crimes: actus reus is the prohibited behaviour itself (e.g. perjury, dangerous driving).
行为犯：犯罪行为本身就是被禁止的行为（如伪证、危险驾驶）。
Result crimes: actus reus requires a specific consequence or result (e.g. murder requires death).
结果犯：犯罪行为要求特定的后果或结果（如谋杀要求死亡）。

2. Mens Rea (Guilty Mind) | 犯罪意图

Mens rea is the mental element of a crime — the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the actus reus. Common types include intention, recklessness, and negligence. A useful way to remember: ‘Mens’ is like ‘mental’. The law usually requires both actus reus and mens rea for a conviction.

犯罪意图是犯罪的心理要素——即被告在犯罪行为时的心理状态。常见类型包括故意、鲁莽和过失。一个有用的记忆方法：’Mens’ 像 ‘mental’（心理）。法律通常要求犯罪构成同时具备犯罪行为和犯罪意图。

For example, in murder, the mens rea is ‘malice aforethought’ — an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. Even if the defendant did not want death, intending really serious injury suffices. Whenever you see ‘malice’, think about the mental state.

例如，在谋杀中，犯罪意图是’恶意预谋’——意图杀害或造成严重身体伤害。即使被告不想要死亡，意图造成极严重伤害也是足够的。每当你看到 ‘malice’（恶意），就要想到心理状态。

3. Transferred Malice | 转移恶意

Transferred malice applies when the defendant intends to commit a crime against one person but accidentally harms another. The mens rea is ‘transferred’ from the intended victim to the actual victim. It works only if the crime remains of the same type — the actus reus and mens rea must match in nature.

转移恶意适用于被告意图对一个人犯罪，但意外地伤害了另一个人的情况。犯罪意图从预定受害人’转移’到实际受害人。它仅适用于犯罪类型相同的情况——犯罪行为与犯罪意图必须在性质上匹配。

Classic scenario: D aims a punch at X but misses and hits V. D’s intention to hit X transfers to V, so D is liable for battery against V. Remember the phrase: ‘The malice follows the bullet’ (or the fist).

典型情景：被告朝向 X 挥拳但没打中，而是击中了 V。被告打 X 的意图转移到 V 身上，因此被告对 V 构成殴击罪。记住短语：’恶意随子弹（或拳头）转移’。

Important limitation: If D throws a stone at a person but breaks a window instead, transferred malice does not apply because criminal damage is a different crime with different mens rea.

重要限制：如果被告向人扔石头，但砸碎了窗户，转移恶意不适用，因为刑事损害是不同的犯罪，具有不同的犯罪意图。

4. Coincidence of AR and MR | 行为与意图的同步性

The general rule is that actus reus and mens rea must coincide in time. The defendant must have the required mental state at the exact moment the act is committed. This principle ensures that accidental actions do not become crimes by later forming a bad intention.

一般规则是犯罪行为与犯罪意图必须在时间上同步。被告必须在实施行为的精确时刻具备所要求的心理状态。这一原则确保偶然行为不会因事后形成不良意图而成为犯罪。

There are exceptions: courts sometimes treat a series of acts as a ‘continuing act’. In Fagan v MPC, the defendant accidentally drove onto a policeman’s foot (actus reus) and then refused to move (continued act). The refusal gave the mens rea during the continuing act, satisfying coincidence.

有例外情况：法院有时将一系列行为视为一个’持续行为’。在 Fagan v MPC 案中，被告意外将车开到了警察的脚上（犯罪行为），然后拒绝移动（持续行为）。拒绝移动在持续行为期间产生了犯罪意图，满足了同步性。

Mnemonic: ‘Mind and action must dance together’ — when they don’t, look for a continuing act.

记忆法：’心理与行动必须共舞’——当它们不同步时，寻找持续行为。

5. Causation: Factual and Legal | 因果关系：事实与法律

In result crimes, the prosecution must prove that the defendant’s conduct caused the prohibited result. Causation has two tests: factual causation (the ‘but for’ test) and legal causation (the ‘substantial and operating’ cause). Both must be satisfied.

在结果犯中，控方必须证明被告的行为导致了被禁止的结果。因果关系有两个检验标准：事实因果关系（’若非’检验）和法律因果关系（’实质性且起作用的’原因）。两者都必须满足。

Factual causation: But for the defendant’s conduct, would the result have occurred? If the answer is no, factual causation is established. Example: ‘But for’ stabbing the victim, she would not have died.

事实因果关系：若非被告的行为，结果会发生吗？如果答案是否定的，则事实因果关系成立。例子：’若非’刺伤了受害者，她就不会死亡。

Legal causation: The defendant’s act must be a substantial and operating cause of the result. It need not be the only cause, but must contribute significantly. An intervening act (novus actus interveniens) may break the chain of causation if it is independent and unforeseeable.

法律因果关系：被告的行为必须是结果的实质性且起作用的原因。它不必是唯一的原因，但必须是重大贡献的原因。一个介入行为（新介入行为）如果是独立且不可预见的，可能打破因果链条。

Think of a chain: D’s act must be a strong link. If a free, deliberate act of a third party or an extraordinary natural event breaks the chain, legal causation fails.

想象一条链条：被告的行为必须是一个强有力的环节。如果第三方自由、蓄意的行为或异常自然事件打断了链条，法律因果关系不成立。

6. Omissions | 不作为

Generally, English law does not impose criminal liability for a failure to act (an omission). However, there are exceptions where a duty to act exists. Remember the six duty situations by the mnemonic ‘COPS DR’: Contract, Office, Public, Special relationship, Duty undertaken, and statutory Duty (some variants add ‘creation of danger’).

一般来说，英国法律不对不作为施加刑事责任。然而，存在某些例外情况，此时存在作为义务。用助记法 ‘COPS DR’ 记住六种义务情形：合同义务 (Contract)、公职义务 (Office)、公共义务 (Public)、特殊关系义务 (Special relationship)、自愿承担的义务 (Duty undertaken) 和法定义务 (statutory Duty)（有些变体加上’制造危险’）。

Example: A parent has a special relationship duty to care for their child. Failing to feed the child could lead to liability for manslaughter or murder through omission. A police officer on duty has a public duty to act.

例子：父母对子女有特殊关系义务，需要照顾孩子。不喂养孩子可能导致因不作为而被控过失杀人或谋杀。执勤警察有行动的公共义务。

When studying omissions, always ask: Did the defendant owe a recognised duty? If yes, was the failure to act a breach of that duty? And did it cause the harm?

研究不作为时，总是要问：被告是否负有被承认的义务？如果是，不作为是否违反了该义务？且它是否导致了伤害？

7. Strict Liability | 严格责任

Strict liability offences are crimes that do not require proof of mens rea for at least one element of the actus reus. The prosecution only needs to show that the defendant performed the prohibited act, voluntarily and without any defence. These offences are usually regulatory, such as selling alcohol to a minor or speeding.

严格责任罪行是指对于犯罪行为的至少一个要素不需要证明犯罪意图的犯罪。控方只需展示被告自愿实施了被禁止的行为且无抗辩理由。这些罪行通常是监管性质的，如向未成年人售酒或超速。

The courts presume mens rea is required unless the statute clearly indicates otherwise. The key factors are set out in Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General, including whether the offence is truly criminal in nature or merely regulatory, and whether strict liability would encourage greater vigilance.

法院推定要求犯罪意图，除非法规明确另有规定。关键因素在 Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General 案中列出，包括罪行是否真正具有刑事性质还是仅仅监管性质，以及严格责任是否会鼓励更高的警惕性。

Quick check: If the offence protects public health, safety, or morals, strict liability is more likely. Remember: ‘No blame, still shame’ — no need to prove a guilty mind, but still a penalty.

快速判断：如果罪行保护公众健康、安全或道德，更可能适用严格责任。记住：’无过错，仍有责’——无需证明犯罪心理，但仍会受罚。

8. Intention, Recklessness, Negligence | 故意、鲁莽与过失

These are the three main levels of mens rea in criminal law. Intention comes in two forms: direct intent (aim or purpose) and oblique intent (result is virtually certain and the defendant appreciates this). Recklessness means the defendant foresaw a risk of the prohibited result and unreasonably took that risk. Negligence is a failure to meet the standard of a reasonable person, without necessarily foreseeing the risk.

这些是刑法中犯罪意图的三个主要层次。故意有两种形式：直接故意（目的或目标）和间接故意（结果几乎是确定的，并且被告意识到这一点）。鲁莽是指被告预见到被禁止结果的风险，但不合理地冒了该风险。过失是指没有达到合理人的标准，而不一定预见到风险。

A helpful ladder: Intention is highest — the defendant wants or knows it will happen. Recklessness is knowing there is a risk but going ahead. Negligence is not even thinking about the risk when a reasonable person would. Only a few crimes use negligence, e.g. gross negligence manslaughter.

一个有用的阶梯：故意是最高级别——被告希望或知道它会发生。鲁莽是知道有风险但仍继续做。过失是当合理人会考虑风险时，被告甚至没有思考风险。只有少数罪行使用过失，如严重过失杀人。

For exams, always check which form of mens rea the offence requires. Murder needs intention; manslaughter can be based on recklessness or negligence.

考试中，始终检查罪行要求哪种犯罪意图形式。谋杀需要故意；过失杀人可以基于鲁莽或过失。

9. Novus Actus Interveniens | 新介入行为

A novus actus interveniens is an intervening act that breaks the chain of causation between the defendant’s conduct and the result. If such an act occurs, the defendant is not legally responsible for the ultimate harm. For it to break the chain, the intervening act must be independent of the defendant’s actions and sufficiently unforeseeable.

新介入行为是指打断了被告行为与结果之间因果链条的介入行为。如果发生此种行为，被告对最终损害不负法律责任。要打断因果链条，介入行为必须独立于被告的行为，且足够不可预见。

Examples of potential novus actus: a third party’s deliberate act, medical negligence, or the victim’s own act (if unreasonable). But if the intervening act is within the scope of the risk created by the defendant, the chain remains intact. For instance, poor medical treatment does not usually break the chain unless it is ‘palpably wrong’ so that the original wound merely a historical setting.

潜在的新介入行为例子：第三方的蓄意行为、医疗过失或受害人自身的行为（如果不合理）。但如果介入行为在被告所制造的风险范围内，因果链条不变。例如，不良医疗处理通常不会打断链条，除非它是’显然错误’的，以至于原始伤害仅仅是历史背景。

Think of a stone thrown into a pond: the ripples continue until a completely new stone is thrown. Only an external, extraordinary event stops the ripples of causation.

想象一块投入池塘的石头：涟漪继续扩散，直到一块全新的石头被投入。只有外部的、异常的事件才能阻止因果关系的涟漪。

10. Statutory Interpretation Rules | 成文法解释规则

When judges interpret statutes, they use established rules (or approaches). The four main ones are: the literal rule, the golden rule, the mischief rule, and the purposive approach. These rules are essential to understanding how courts give meaning to legislation.

法官解释成文法时，使用既定的规则（或方法）。四个主要规则是：字面规则、黄金规则、弊端规则和目的性方法。这些规则对于理解法院如何赋予立法以含义至关重要。

Literal rule: Words given their plain, ordinary dictionary meaning, even if the result is harsh. E.g. Whitely v Chappell — ‘person entitled to vote’ did not include a dead person, so defendant was acquitted.
字面规则：词语采用其普通、字典上的含义，即使结果严苛。例如 Whitely v Chappell 案——’有权投票的人’ 不包括死人，因此被告被判无罪。
Golden rule: Used when literal meaning leads to absurdity. Narrow approach: choose between two possible meanings. Broad approach: modify the words to avoid a repugnant result. Re Sigsworth — a son who murdered his mother could not inherit her estate by literal wording, so the golden rule prevented him profiting from crime.
黄金规则：当字面含义导致荒谬结果时使用。狭义方法：在两个可能的含义中选择。广义方法：修改词语以避免令人反感的结果。Re Sigsworth 案——谋杀母亲的儿子不能按字面规定继承遗产，因此黄金规则阻止其从犯罪中获利。
Mischief rule: The court looks at the ‘mischief’ or problem the statute was intended to remedy and interprets the words to suppress that mischief. Smith v Hughes — prostitutes soliciting from a balcony were caught by the Street Offences Act because the mischief was harassment, regardless of location.
弊端规则：法院审视法条旨在弥补的’弊端’或问题，并解释条文以抑制该弊端。Smith v Hughes 案——从阳台拉客的妓女受《街头犯罪法》管辖，因为弊端是骚扰，不论地点。
Purposive approach: A broader version of the mischief rule, focusing on the overall purpose of the Act, even departing from the words. Used extensively in EU and human rights contexts. E.g. Pepper v Hart allowed use of Hansard to discover Parliament’s intention.
目的性方法：弊端规则的更宽泛版本，侧重于法案的整体目的，甚至可以偏离词语。广泛用于欧盟和人权语境。例如 Pepper v Hart 案允许使用议会辩论记录来发现议会的意图。

Memory tip: ‘Literal gives way when it’s absurd or incomplete — Golden, Mischief, Purposive step in to make the law fit the people.’

记忆提示：’字面规则在荒谬或不完整时让位——黄金规则、弊端规则、目的性方法介入，使法律适合人民。’

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

更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）

Quick Memorisation Guide to Legal Terminology | 法律词汇术语速记指南