📚 Year 13 OCR Law: Vocabulary & Terminology Memory Guide | 词汇术语速记指南
Mastering the precise vocabulary of A Level Law is half the battle. This guide breaks down the most critical Year 13 OCR Law terms into logical groups, pairing each concept with a clear English explanation and its Chinese equivalent. Use it for quick revision, active recall, and to ensure your essays demonstrate accurate legal knowledge.
掌握 A Level 法律课程中精确的词汇是成功的一半。本指南将 Year 13 OCR 法律中最关键的术语按逻辑分组，为每个概念提供清晰的英文解释及相应的中文表述。请用它来快速复习、主动回忆，并确保你的论文展现出准确的法律知识。
1. Criminal Law: Actus Reus and Mens Rea | 刑法：犯罪行为与犯罪意图
Actus reus means the guilty act. It is the physical element of a crime, which can be an act, an omission (where a duty to act exists), or a state of affairs. For example, in murder the actus reus is the unlawful killing of a human being. Omissions only give rise to liability if there is a legal duty, such as a contractual duty (Pittwood), a duty due to relationship (Gibbins and Proctor), or a duty arising from the defendant’s creation of a dangerous situation (Miller). The act must be voluntary; involuntary conduct like an epileptic seizure cannot form the actus reus.
犯罪行为（Actus reus）指有罪的行为。它是犯罪的客观要素，可以是一个作为、一个不作为（在存在作为义务时），或一种状态。例如，在谋杀罪中，犯罪行为是非法杀害一个人。只有在存在法律义务时，不作为才会产生责任，例如合同义务（Pittwood 案）、因关系产生的义务（Gibbins and Proctor 案），或被告制造危险局面后产生的义务（Miller 案）。行为必须是自愿的；非自愿行为如癫痫发作不能构成犯罪行为。
Mens rea is the guilty mind. It refers to the mental element required for a particular crime. There are different levels: intention (direct or oblique), recklessness (subjective, as recognised in Cunningham), negligence, and knowledge. Direct intention means the defendant desires a specific outcome. Oblique intention arises where the consequence is a virtual certainty and the defendant appreciates this (Woollin). Subjective recklessness means the defendant foresees a risk, yet goes on to take it unreasonably.
犯罪意图（Mens rea）是犯罪心理。它指特定犯罪所要求的心理要素。犯罪意图有不同的层级：意图（直接或间接）、轻率（主观的，如 Cunningham 案所确认）、疏忽和明知。直接意图指被告希望特定结果发生。间接意图存在于当结果几乎确定会发生，而被告意识到这一点时（Woollin 案）。主观轻率指被告预见到某种风险，但仍不合理地冒此风险。
A fundamental principle is that actus reus and mens rea must coincide in time. The leading case is Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner, where the defendant’s act of driving onto a constable’s foot was accidental, but the subsequent failure to move the car constituted a continuing act, ensuring both elements were present simultaneously. Some offences, like strict liability crimes, require no mens rea for at least one part of the actus reus.
基本原则是犯罪行为与犯罪意图必须在时间上同时并存。主要案例是 Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner，该案中被告驾车压到警察脚部是意外，但随后拒绝移开车辆构成了持续行为，从而确保两个要素同时存在。某些犯罪，如严格责任犯罪，对犯罪行为至少一个部分不要求犯罪意图。
2. Causation in Criminal Law | 刑法中的因果关系
Causation links the defendant’s conduct to the prohibited consequence. It consists of two strands: factual causation and legal causation. Factual causation is established by the ‘but for’ test: but for the defendant’s actions, would the result have occurred? (White). If the answer is no, factual causation is satisfied. Legal causation requires that the defendant’s conduct was a substantial and operating cause of the result. The harm must arise from a culpable act (Dalloway) and the chain of causation must not be broken.
因果关系将被告的行为与禁止发生的结果联系起来。它包括两个方面：事实因果关系和法律因果关系。事实因果关系通过“若无则不”检验标准来确立：若无被告的行为，结果是否仍会发生？（White 案）。如果答案是否定的，则事实因果关系成立。法律因果关系要求被告的行为是结果的实质性且持续起作用的原因。损害必须源于可归责的行为（Dalloway 案），且因果关系链不得被中断。
The chain of causation can be broken by a novus actus interveniens (new intervening act). This can be an act of a third party, the victim’s own act, or a natural event. For such an intervening act to break the chain, it must be ‘free, voluntary and informed’ and sufficiently independent of the original wrongdoing. The courts will assess whether the intervening act is reasonably foreseeable; if so, it is unlikely to absolve the defendant. Medical negligence rarely breaks the chain unless it is so potent as to render the original wound merely part of the history (Cheshire). The ‘thin skull’ rule (eggshell skull rule) means the defendant must take the victim as found, even if a pre-existing condition makes the harm more serious than expected (Blaue).
因果关系链可能被一个新的介入行为（novus actus interveniens）打断。这可以是第三方的行为、受害者自身的行为，或自然事件。要使介入行为打断因果链，它必须是“自由、自愿且知情的”，并充分独立于最初的违法行为。法院将评估介入行为是否具有合理可预见性；如可预见，则不太可能免除被告的责任。医疗过失很少中断因果关系链，除非其作用极其强大，使最初的伤害仅沦为背景（Cheshire 案）。“薄头骨”规则（蛋壳脑袋规则）意味着被告必须接受受害者的本来状况，即使原有病情使损害比预期更严重（Blaue 案）。
3. Strict Liability | 严格责任
Strict liability offences require no proof of mens rea for at least one element of the actus reus. The prosecution only needs to prove the defendant carried out the prohibited act. Such offences are usually regulatory or statutory in nature, covering matters like selling alcohol to underage persons, food safety, and health and safety at work. The rationale is to protect the public and encourage high standards of care. In Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General, the Privy Council set out the starting presumption that mens rea is required unless the statute clearly excludes it. Factors for strict liability include the wording of the statute, the social concern addressed, and whether imposing strict liability will help enforce compliance.
严格责任犯罪不需要证明犯罪行为中至少一个要素的犯罪意图。控方只需证明被告实施了禁止行为。此类罪行通常属于监管性或法定性质，涵盖向未成年人售酒、食品安全和工作健康与安全等事项。其理由在于保护公众并鼓励高标准的注意义务。在 Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General 案中，枢密院确立了一条起始推定，即要求犯罪意图，除非法规明确排除。判断严格责任的因素包括法规的措辞、所处理的社会问题，以及施加严格责任是否有助于促进遵守规定。
Due diligence defences are commonly available in strict liability offences; a defendant may escape liability by proving they took all reasonable steps to avoid the offence. The case of Sweet v Parsley shows that where a statute imposes a truly criminal offence, there is a stronger presumption of mens rea. Understanding strict liability is essential for the criminal law paper, especially the contrasts with offences requiring fault.
尽职调查抗辩通常适用于严格责任犯罪；被告可以通过证明其已采取一切合理措施来避免犯罪而免于承担责任。Sweet v Parsley 案表明，当法规规定一项真正的刑事犯罪时，要求犯罪意图的推定更为强烈。理解严格责任对刑法试卷至关重要，尤其是它与需要过错的犯罪的对比。
4. Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person | 非致命人身侵犯
The hierarchy of non-fatal offences is governed by the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and common law. They are assault and battery (common law), s.47 assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH), s.20 malicious wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm (GBH), and s.18 wounding or causing GBH with intent. Assault is causing another to apprehend immediate unlawful force (Constanza). Battery is the actual infliction of unlawful force. Words can override an apparent threat (Tuberville v Savage).
非致命侵犯的等级由《1861年人身侵犯法》和普通法规定。它们包括：企图伤害（assault）和殴击（battery）（普通法），第47条 造成实际身体伤害的企图伤害（ABH），第20条 恶意伤害或造成严重身体伤害（GBH），以及第18条 意图造成严重身体伤害的伤害（最严重）。企图伤害是使他人预见到即将发生的非法暴力（Constanza 案）。殴击是实际施加非法暴力。语言可以抵消表面的威胁（Tuberville v Savage 案）。
ABH requires assault or battery resulting in ‘actual bodily harm’, which is any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the victim’s health or comfort (Miller). S.20 GBH requires a malicious act that causes really serious harm, with a mens rea of subjective recklessness (Parmenter). S.18 GBH requires specific intent to cause GBH or to resist arrest, carrying a maximum life sentence. Key case law includes R v Burstow, where silent telephone calls were held to be an assault, and DPP v Smith, which clarified the meaning of ‘maliciously’.
实际身体伤害（ABH）要求企图伤害或殴击导致“实际身体伤害”，即任何旨在干扰受害者健康或舒适的伤害或损伤（Miller 案）。第20条严重身体伤害（GBH）要求一个恶意行为造成真正严重的伤害，犯罪意图为主观轻率（Parmenter 案）。第18条严重身体伤害要求有造成严重身体伤害或抵抗逮捕的特定意图，最高可判终身监禁。关键案例法包括 R v Burstow，其中无声电话被认定为企图伤害，以及 DPP v Smith，该案澄清了“恶意地”一词的含义。
5. Theft and Property Offences | 盗窃与财产犯罪
Theft is defined by s.1 Theft Act 1968 as the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. Its elements can be remembered with the acronym D.A.P.I.D.: Dishonesty, Appropriation, Property, Intention to permanently deprive, and the property must Belong to another. Appropriation (s.3) includes assuming any of the rights of an owner, and even a gift given with consent can be an appropriation if later deemed dishonest (Gomez; Hinks).
盗窃由《1968年盗窃法》第1条定义为：以永久剥夺他人财产为目的，不诚实地挪用属于他人的财产。其构成要素可用首字母缩写 D.A.P.I.D. 记忆：不诚实（Dishonesty）、挪用（Appropriation）、财产（Property）、永久剥夺的意图（Intention to permanently deprive），以及财产必须属于他人（Belonging to another）。挪用（第3条）包括行使所有者的任何权利，即使经同意获得的赠与，若事后被认为不诚实，也可构成挪用（Gomez 案；Hinks 案）。
The Ghosh test for dishonesty was replaced by the test in Ivey v Genting Casinos: the jury must first ascertain the defendant’s actual state of knowledge or belief as to the facts; then, applying an objective standard, determine whether his conduct was dishonest. Robbery (s.8) is theft plus the use or threat of force immediately before or at the time of stealing. Burglary (s.9) is entering a building as a trespasser with intent to commit theft, GBH, or criminal damage, or after entry committing such offences. Fraud (Fraud Act 2006) can be committed by false representation, failing to disclose information, or abuse of position.
关于不诚实的 Ghosh 检验标准已被 Ivey v Genting Casinos 案中的标准取代：陪审团首先必须查明被告对事实的实际认知或信念状态；然后，运用客观标准，判断其行为是否不诚实。抢劫（第8条）是在盗窃的同时或紧接盗窃前使用或威胁使用武力。入室盗窃（第9条）是作为侵入者进入建筑物，意图实施盗窃、造成严重身体伤害或刑事损害，或在进入后实施此类犯罪。欺诈（2006年《欺诈法》）可通过虚假陈述、不披露信息或滥用职位实施。
6. Defences in Criminal Law | 刑法抗辩
Key general defences include insanity, automatism, intoxication, self-defence, and consent. Insanity is a legal concept set out in M’Naghten’s Case: the defendant must prove on the balance of probabilities that, due to a disease of the mind, he did not know the nature and quality of his act or that what he was doing was wrong. Automatism is an external factor causing a total loss of voluntary control (e.g., a concussion, but not internally induced like a brain disease). Self-defence allows reasonable force to protect oneself, others, or property; the force must be necessary and proportionate (Palmer). The defence of intoxication differentiates between voluntary and involuntary intoxication. Voluntary intoxication is only a defence to crimes of specific intent (e.g., murder, s.18 GBH) if it prevents the formation of the intent; it is no defence to basic intent crimes (DPP v Majewski).
主要的一般抗辩包括精神失常、自动症、醉酒、自我防卫和同意。精神失常是一个法律概念，规定于 M’Naghten 案：被告必须以盖然性权衡证明，由于精神疾病，他不了解自己行为的性质和质量，或不知道自己所为是错误的。自动症是由外部因素导致完全丧失自愿控制能力（例如脑震荡，但非由脑部疾病等内在因素引起）。自我防卫允许使用合理的武力保护自己、他人或财产；武力必须是必要且相称的（Palmer 案）。醉酒抗辩区分自愿醉酒与非自愿醉酒。自愿醉酒只有在阻止形成特定意图时，才可作为特定意图犯罪（如谋杀、第18条严重身体伤害）的抗辩；对于基本意图犯罪则不能作为抗辩（DPP v Majewski 案）。
Consent can operate as a defence to assaults and batteries where the victim has genuinely consented, but consent is limited by public policy. You cannot consent to actual bodily harm or more serious injury unless the activity falls within one of the recognised exceptions such as properly conducted sport, surgery, or religious flagellation within certain bounds (Brown). In the context of sexual offences, consent is defined by s.74 Sexual Offences Act 2003: a person consents if he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice.
同意可作为企图伤害和殴击的抗辩，前提是受害者真实同意，但同意受公共政策限制。你不能同意造成实际身体伤害或更严重的伤害，除非该活动属于公认的例外情况，如正当进行的体育活动、外科手术或在特定范围内的宗教鞭笞（Brown 案）。在性犯罪背景下，2003年《性犯罪法》第74条将同意定义为：若一个人出于选择、并具有做出该选择的自由和能力而同意的，即为同意。
7. Tort Law: Negligence | 侵权法：过失
Negligence is a tort that requires proof of three elements: duty of care, breach of that duty, and damage caused by the breach (causation and remoteness). The modern duty of care test comes from Caparo Industries plc v Dickman, which established a three-stage test: was the harm reasonably foreseeable? Was there sufficient proximity between claimant and defendant? Is it fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty? This replaces the older neighbourhood principle from Donoghue v Stevenson, though that remains the starting point.
过失是一种需要证明三个要素的侵权行为：注意义务、违反该项义务以及因该违反行为造成的损害（因果关系和损害远隔性）。现代注意义务的检验标准来自 Caparo Industries plc v Dickman 案，确立了三阶段检验法：损害是否具有合理可预见性？原告与被告之间是否存在足够的紧密关系？施加注意义务是否公平、公正且合理？这取代了 Donoghue v Stevenson 案中旧的邻里原则，尽管后者仍是出发点。
Breach occurs when the defendant falls below the standard of the reasonable person (Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks). The courts consider factors such as the likelihood of harm, the seriousness of potential harm, the social value of the defendant’s activity, and the cost and practicality of taking precautions. Learned Hand formula (from US law) is occasionally referenced. Professional persons are judged by the standard of a reasonably competent member of that profession (Bolam test, modified by Bolitho). Damage must be causally linked both factually (but for test) and legally (reasonable foreseeability of the type of harm – Wagon Mound).
违反义务发生在被告的行为低于理性人的标准时（Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks 案）。法院会考虑损害发生的可能性、潜在损害的严重性、被告行为的社会价值，以及采取预防措施的成本与可行性等因素。有时会参考 Learned Hand 公式（源自美国法）。专业人士的判断标准是一个合理能干的同业成员的标准（Bolam 检验标准，经 Bolitho 修正）。损害必须在事实上（若无则不检验）和法律上（损害类型的合理可预见性 – Wagon Mound 案）与违反义务存在因果联系。
8. Occupiers’ Liability | 占有人责任
Occupiers’ liability governs the duty owed by occupiers of premises to visitors and trespassers. Under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, lawful visitors are owed a ‘common duty of care’ to see they are reasonably safe for the purpose of their visit (s.2(2)). An occupier is anyone who has a sufficient degree of control over the premises (Wheat v E Lacon). The duty covers the state of the premises and activities carried out but generally not independent contractor work if reasonable steps were taken to ensure competence (s.2(4)(b)). Children and persons exercising a calling may be owed a higher or modified standard.
占有人责任管辖场所占有人对来访者和侵入者所负的义务。根据《1957年占有人责任法》，合法来访者被负有“一般注意义务”，以确保他们在来访目的下是合理安全的（第2(2)条）。占有人是指对场所拥有足够程度控制权的任何人（Wheat v E Lacon 案）。该义务涵盖场所的状态及在场所内开展的活动，但一般不包括独立承包商的工作，前提是已采取合理措施确保其能力（第2(4)(b)条）。儿童和从事特定行业的人可能被赋予更高或调整后的标准。
The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 imposes a limited duty towards non-visitors (trespassers). An occupier owes a duty if they are aware of the danger, know a trespasser may come into the vicinity, and the risk is one they may reasonably be expected to offer some protection against. The duty is to take such care as is reasonable to prevent injury from that danger. Warning signs may discharge the duty. Key cases include Tomlinson v Congleton BC and Rhind v Astbury Water Park.
《1984年占有人责任法》对非来访者（侵入者）施加了有限的义务。若占有人意识到危险存在，知道侵入者可能进入危险附近，且该风险是合理期待其应提供某种保护的，则负有义务。该义务是采取合理注意以防止因该危险而造成伤害。警告标志可能使义务得以履行。关键案例包括 Tomlinson v Congleton BC 和 Rhind v Astbury Water Park。
9. Vicarious Liability | 替代责任
Vicarious liability is a form of secondary liability where an employer is held responsible for torts committed by an employee in the course of employment. The modern test for an employee-employer relationship is whether the worker was an employee or an independent contractor. Courts look at control, integration, and economic reality tests (Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions). The recent trend is to focus on whether the relationship is ‘akin to employment’ (Cox v Ministry of Justice). The tort must occur during the course of employment. Even unauthorised acts can be within the course if they are closely connected with what the employee was authorised to do (Lister v Hesley Hall).
替代责任是一种间接责任形式，指雇主对雇员在雇佣过程中实施的侵权行为承担责任。判断雇佣关系的现代标准是看该工作者是雇员还是独立承包商。法院会考察控制性、整合性及经济现实标准（Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions 案）。近期趋势侧重于该关系是否“类似于雇佣”（Cox v Ministry of Justice 案）。侵权行为必须发生在雇佣过程中。即使是未经授权的行为，如果与雇员被授权从事的活动有紧密联系，也可能属于雇佣过程（Lister v Hesley Hall 案）。
Employers may also be liable for deliberate torts of employees, such as abuse or theft, if the connection is sufficiently close. The justification for vicarious liability includes the employer’s deeper pocket, the benefit to the employer from the employee’s work, and loss distribution. Students must also be aware of the concept of primary liability and the interplay with occupiers’ liability when an independent contractor is used.
雇主也可能对雇员的故意侵权行为负责，例如虐待或盗窃，如果联系足够紧密。替代责任的理论依据包括雇主更强的赔偿能力、雇员工作给雇主带来的利益以及损失分散。学生还应了解首要责任的概念，以及在雇佣独立承包商时与占有人责任的相互作用。
10. Contract Law: Offer and Acceptance | 合同法：要约与承诺
The formation of a contract requires offer, acceptance, consideration, intention to create legal relations, and capacity. An offer is an expression of willingness to contract on certain terms, made with the intention that it will become binding as soon as it is accepted. It must be distinguished from an invitation to treat, which is an invitation to negotiate or make offers (Fisher v Bell; Partridge v Crittenden). Advertisements, shop displays, and catalogues are generally invitations to treat, not offers. An offer can be terminated by revocation, rejection, lapse of time, death, or failure of a condition precedent.
合同的成立要求要约、承诺、对价、建立法律关系的意图以及行为能力。要约是愿意按特定条款订立合同的意思表示，并带有一旦被接受即受约束的意图。必须将要约与要约邀请区分开来，后者是邀请谈判或提出要约（Fisher v Bell 案；Partridge v Crittenden 案）。广告、商店陈列和目录一般是要约邀请，而非要约。要约可因撤回、拒绝、过期、死亡或先决条件不成就而终止。
Acceptance must be a mirror image of the offer and must be communicated to the offeror. The postal rule (Adams v Lindsell) states that acceptance by post is effective upon posting, not upon receipt, provided the letter is properly addressed and posted, and it is reasonable to use the post. The postal rule does not apply to instantaneous communications (Entores v Miles Far East). Silence cannot amount to acceptance (Felthouse v Bindley). An invitation to treat cannot be accepted. In unilateral contracts, acceptance is performance of the requested act (Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball).
承诺必须是要约的镜像，并且必须传达给要约人。投邮规则（Adams v Lindsell 案）规定，通过邮寄方式作出承诺，一经投递即生效，而非在收到时生效，前提是信件地址正确、已付邮并合理使用邮寄方式。投邮规则不适用于即时通信（Entores v Miles Far East 案）。沉默不能构成承诺（Felthouse v Bindley 案）。要约邀请不能被承诺。在单务合同中，承诺就是实施所要求的行为（Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball 案）。
11. Consideration and Intention to Create Legal Relations | 对价与建立法律关系的意图
Consideration is the ‘price’ for which the promise is bought. It is something of value given by the promisee to the promisor. The rules are that consideration must move from the promisee, it need not be adequate but must be sufficient, past consideration is not good consideration (Re McArdle), and performance of an existing contractual duty owed to a third party can be good consideration (The Eurymedon). The concept of promissory estoppel provides an exception where a party relies on a promise to their detriment even without fresh consideration (Central London Property Trust v High Trees House).
对价是为承诺所支付的“代价”。它是受诺人给予允诺人的某种有价值的东西。规则包括：对价必须来自受诺人，不要求充分但必须足够，过去的对价不是正当对价（Re McArdle 案），履行对第三方负有的现有合同义务可以构成正当对价（The Eurymedon 案）。允诺禁反言原则提供了一个例外，即一方基于对他方允诺的依赖而受损，即使没有新对价（Central London Property Trust v High Trees House 案）。
For a contract to be enforceable, there must be an intention to create legal relations. In commercial agreements, there is a strong presumption that the parties intended to be bound, whereas in domestic and social arrangements the presumption is the opposite (Balfour v Balfour; Jones v Padavatton). The presumption can be rebutted by clear evidence. Contractual terms may be express or implied. The courts will imply terms by fact, law, or custom. Exclusion clauses are controlled by the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Consumer Rights Act 2015; they require incorporation, construction, and must pass the reasonableness test.
合同要具有执行力，必须有建立法律关系的意图。在商业协议中，存在双方意图受约束的强推定，而在家庭和社会安排中，推定则相反（Balfour v Balfour 案；Jones v Padavatton 案）。这些推定可通过明确证据推翻。合同条款可以是明示或默示的。法院会根据事实、法律或习惯默示条款。免责条款受《1977年不公平合同条款法》和《2015年消费者权益法》的规制；它们要求被纳入合同、经解释并且通过合理性检验。
12. Judicial Precedent | 司法先例
The doctrine of judicial precedent (stare decisis) operates in the common law system to ensure consistency, certainty, and fairness. It requires that lower courts follow the decisions of higher courts in the same hierarchy. The ratio decidendi (the legal reason for the decision) is binding, while obiter dicta (things said by the way) are persuasive only. The Supreme Court (formerly House of Lords) binds all lower courts but since the Practice Statement 1966 it may depart from its own previous decisions when it appears right to do so. The Court of Appeal is bound by its own previous decisions subject to the exceptions in Young v Bristol Aeroplane.
司法先例原则（遵循先例）在普通法体系中运作，以确保一致性、确定性和公平性。它要求下级法院遵循同一等级体系中上级法院的判决。判决理由（ratio decidendi，即判决的法律原因）具有约束力，而附带意见（obiter dicta，顺带所说的话）仅具有说服力。最高法院（原上议院）约束所有下级法院，但自1966年《实务声明》之后，在其认为正确的情况下，可以偏离自己先前的判决。上诉法院受自己先前判决的约束，但受 Young v Bristol Aeroplane 案所确立的例外限制。
Judges can avoid following a inconvenient precedent by using the techniques of distinguishing (finding material differences in facts), overruling (a higher court declaring a lower court precedent wrong), or reversing (the same case on appeal changing the outcome). The hierarchy of courts is central: Supreme Court > Court of Appeal (Civil and Criminal divisions) > High Court > Crown Court, County Court, Magistrates’ Court. The doctrine of precedent is a fundamental topic and will feature in many essay questions, so memorising the key case names and principles is essential.
法官可以通过运用区分（找出事实上的重大区别）、推翻（上级法院宣告下级法院的先例错误）或改判（同一案件在上诉中改变结果）等技巧来避免遵循不合适的先例。法院的等级体系至关重要：最高法院 > 上诉法院（民事和刑事分庭） > 高等法院 > 刑事法院、郡法院、治安法院。先例原则是一个基本专题，会出现在许多论文问题中，因此记住关键案件名称和原则至关重要。
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