Formula & Theorem Quick Reference Handbook | 公式定理速查手册

📚 Formula & Theorem Quick Reference Handbook | 公式定理速查手册

Legal rules can be just as precise as mathematical formulas. For Year 13 WJEC Law students, remembering the exact ingredients of criminal and civil liability is essential. This handbook presents key legal principles as structured ‘formulas’ – each breaking down the required actus reus, mens rea, and any relevant defences or tests. Use these to speed up your revision and sharpen your application skills.

法律规则就像数学公式一样精确。对于 Year 13 WJEC 法律学生来说，记住刑事和民事责任的确切构成要件至关重要。这本手册将关键法律原则呈现为结构化的“公式”——每条公式拆解了所需的犯罪行为、犯罪意图以及任何相关的抗辩或测试。用它来加速你的复习，提升你的应用能力。

1. Murder Formula | 谋杀罪公式

Murder = Unlawful killing of a human being + Under the Queen’s peace + With malice aforethought (intention to kill or cause GBH). The actus reus is the unlawful killing; the mens rea is malice aforethought, which includes direct intent (aim or purpose) and oblique intent (foresight of virtual certainty).

谋杀罪 = 非法杀害他人 + 在和平时期 + 具有恶意预谋（意图杀人或造成严重身体伤害）。犯罪行为是非法杀害；犯罪意图是恶意预谋，包括直接故意（目的或目标）和间接故意（预见结果为几乎必然发生）。

Actus reus: unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being
犯罪行为：非法杀害有生命的人
Mens rea: intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH)
犯罪意图：意图杀人或造成严重身体伤害
Key case: R v Cunningham [1982] – oblique intention test
关键案例：R v Cunningham [1982] – 间接故意测试

Element / 要件	Description / 描述
Victim / 受害者	A human being (R v Malcherek)
Causation / 因果关系	Factual and legal causation must be established
Malice aforethought / 恶意预谋	Express or implied; does not require premeditation

2. Voluntary Manslaughter – Diminished Responsibility | 自愿过失杀人 – 减轻责任

Diminished Responsibility = (Murder – Malice) replaced by section 2 Homicide Act 1957 (as amended by s.52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009). The defendant must prove on balance of probabilities: Abnormality of mental functioning + Recognised medical condition + Substantial impairment of ability to understand nature of conduct, form rational judgment, or exercise self‑control + Provides an explanation for the killing.

减轻责任 = （谋杀 − 恶意）被《1957年杀人法》第2条（经《2009年验尸官与司法法》第52条修订）替代。被告须以盖然性权衡证明：精神功能异常 + 公认的医学状况 + 严重损害理解行为性质、作出理性判断或行使自我控制的能力 + 为杀人行为提供解释。

Burden on the defendant: standard is balance of probabilities
举证责任在被告：标准为盖然性权衡
If successful, reduces murder to voluntary manslaughter
若成功，谋杀罪降为自愿过失杀人
Key case: R v Byrne (1960) – irresistible impulse
关键案例：R v Byrne (1960) – 不可抗拒的冲动

3. Voluntary Manslaughter – Loss of Control | 自愿过失杀人 – 失控

Loss of Control = (Murder – Malice) replaced by s.54-55 Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Formula: D’s acts resulted from loss of self‑control + The loss had a qualifying trigger (fear of serious violence, or things said/done which were grave in character and caused a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged) + A person of D’s age and sex with a normal degree of tolerance and self‑restraint would have reacted similarly.

失控 = （谋杀 − 恶意）被《2009年验尸官与司法法》第54-55条替代。公式：被告的行为是由于丧失自我控制 + 该失控具有合格触发因素（对严重暴力的恐惧，或所说/所做事情性质严重并引起正当的严重委屈感） + 一个与被告同龄和同性别、具有正常容忍度和自控力的人会作出类似反应。

Cannot be used where D acted out of revenge
若被告出于报复，不得使用此抗辩
Sexual infidelity is excluded as a sole trigger (R v Clinton softened this)
单独的性不忠被排除在触发因素之外（R v Clinton 案有所软化）

4. Non‑fatal Offences Against the Person Formula | 非致命人身犯罪公式

The ladder of non‑fatal offences can be expressed as a hierarchy of actus reus and mens rea:

非致命犯罪的梯级可以用犯罪行为和犯罪意图的层次来表示：

Offence / 罪行	Actus reus / 犯罪行为	Mens rea / 犯罪意图	Key case / 关键案例
Assault (common) / 普通威胁	Causing V to apprehend immediate unlawful force	Intention or recklessness	R v Ireland
Battery / 殴打	Infliction of unlawful force	Intention or recklessness	Cole v Turner
s.47 ABH / 实际身体伤害	Assault or battery causing actual bodily harm	Same as assault/battery	R v Chan‑Fook
s.20 GBH / 恶意伤害	Wounding or inflicting GBH	Malice (intention or recklessness as to some harm)	R v Savage; Parmenter
s.18 GBH with intent / 故意重伤	Wounding or causing GBH	Specific intent to cause GBH or resist arrest	R v Belfon

Remember that for s.47, the mens rea needed is only that of the initial assault or battery; no extra foresight is required (R v Roberts).

请记住，对于第47条，犯罪意图仅需要初始威胁或殴打的意图；不需要额外的预见（R v Roberts）。

5. Property Offences – Theft Formula | 财产犯罪 – 盗窃罪公式

Theft = Dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it (s.1 Theft Act 1968). Break it down:

盗窃罪 = 不诚实地占有属于他人的财产，意图永久剥夺他人对该财产的权利（《1968年盗窃法》第1条）。拆解如下：

Actus reus: Appropriation (s.3) + Property (s.4) + Belonging to another (s.5)
犯罪行为：占有（第3条）+ 财产（第4条）+ 属于他人（第5条）
Mens rea: Dishonesty (s.2, and Ivey v Genting Casinos objective test) + Intention to permanently deprive (s.6)
犯罪意图：不诚实（第2条，以及Ivey v Genting Casinos 客观测试）+ 永久剥夺的意图（第6条）

The Ghosh test for dishonesty is no longer good law; apply the Ivey test: what was the actual state of D’s knowledge or belief as to the facts, and was the conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people?

关于不诚实的 Ghosh 测试已不再是有效法律；适用 Ivey 测试：被告对事实的实际认知或信念是什么，并且按照普通正派人的标准，该行为是否不诚实？

6. Tort Law – Negligence Formula | 侵权法 – 过失侵权公式

Negligence = Duty of care + Breach of duty + Causation + Damage that is not too remote. This is the classic formula from the tort of negligence. The duty is established using the Caparo three‑stage test: foreseeability of damage, proximity, and whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty.

过失侵权 = 注意义务 + 违反义务 + 因果关系 + 非过于遥远的损害。这是过失侵权经典公式。注意义务通过 Caparo 三阶段测试确立：损害的可预见性、邻近性，以及施加义务是否公平、公正和合理。

Duty → Breach → Causation → Remoteness

义务 → 违反 → 因果关系 → 遥远性

For breach, the standard is that of the reasonable person (Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks); special standards apply for professionals (Bolam) and children (Mullin v Richards). Causation uses the ‘but for’ test (Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital) and the legal cause must make a material contribution (Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw). Remoteness is governed by The Wagon Mound: only foreseeable types of damage are recoverable.

对于违反义务，标准是合理人标准（Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks）；对专业人士（Bolam）和儿童（Mullin v Richards）适用特殊标准。因果关系使用“若非”测试（Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital），并且法律原因必须构成实质性贡献（Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw）。遥远性由The Wagon Mound 规则管辖：只有可预见类型的损害才可获赔偿。

7. Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 – Lawful Visitors | 占用人责任法1957 – 合法访客

OLA 1957 duty = Occupier of premises + Lawful visitor + Personal injury or property damage caused by state of premises. The occupier owes a common duty of care to see that the visitor is reasonably safe. Special rules apply to children (less care expected) and tradesmen (awareness of own risks).

1957年占用人责任法义务 = 处所占用人 + 合法访客 + 由处所状况造成的人身伤害或财产损害。占用人负有一般注意义务，确保访客合理安全。对儿童（预期较少注意）和技工（对自身风险有认识）适用特殊规则。

Occupier (control) + Visitor + Danger due to state of premises → Duty

占用人（控制）+ 访客 + 因处所状况而生的危险 → 义务

Warning notices may discharge the duty if they are sufficiently clear (Roles v Nathan).

如果警告足够明确，可解除义务（Roles v Nathan）。

8. Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 – Trespassers | 占用人责任法1984 – 侵入者

OLA 1984 duty = Occupier + Non‑visitor (trespasser) + Awareness of danger + Knowledge that trespasser may come into vicinity + Risk against which it is reasonable to offer protection. Only personal injury (not property) is covered.

1984年占用人责任法义务 = 占用人 + 非访客（侵入者） + 意识到危险 + 知道侵入者可能进入附近 + 该风险值得合理提供保护。仅涵盖人身伤害（不包括财产）。

Occupier must have reasonable grounds to believe the danger exists and that a trespasser might encounter it.
占用人必须有合理理由相信危险存在，且侵入者可能遭遇该危险。
Duty is to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances.
义务是在所有情况下采取合理的注意。
Warnings can discharge the duty (Tomlinson v Congleton BC – obvious natural features).
警告可以解除义务（Tomlinson v Congleton BC – 明显的自然特征）。

9. Judicial Precedent – The ‘Formula’ of Stare Decisis | 司法先例 – 遵循先例的“公式”

Precedent = Ratio decidendi (binding reason) + Obiter dicta (persuasive) + Court hierarchy. A court must follow the binding part of a decision by a higher court in the same hierarchy. The ratio is extracted using the material facts test or the ‘level of abstraction’ approach.

先例 = 判决理由（具有约束力）+ 附带意见（具有说服力）+ 法院层级。同一体系内，法院必须遵循上级法院判决的约束部分。判决理由通过实质性事实测试或“抽象层次”方法提取。

Binding precedent = Higher court + Same hierarchy + Material facts identical

约束性先例 = 上级法院 + 同一体系 + 实质性事实相同

The Supreme Court can depart from its own previous precedents using the 1966 Practice Statement; the Court of Appeal is generally bound by its own decisions with limited exceptions (Young v Bristol Aeroplane). Reversing and overruling keep the common law flexible.

最高法院可使用1966年实践声明偏离自身先例；上诉法院通常受自身判决约束，但有有限的例外（Young v Bristol Aeroplane）。撤销和推翻使普通法保持灵活。

10. Statutory Interpretation – Three Rules Formula | 法律解释 – 三项规则公式

Judges interpret acts of Parliament using three primary rules, often applied in combination or hierarchy:

法官使用三项主要规则解释议会立法，通常结合或按层次适用：

Literal Rule / 字面规则： Give words their ordinary, dictionary meaning even if it leads to absurdity (R v Harris).
给予词语其普通、字典含义，即使导致荒谬结果（R v Harris）。
Golden Rule / 黄金规则： Modify the literal meaning to avoid an absurd or repugnant result; narrow approach (choose between meanings) or wide approach (modify to avoid absurdity) (R v Allen; Re Sigsworth).
调整字面含义以避免荒谬或令人反感的结果；窄适用（在含义中选择）或宽适用（修改以避免荒谬）(R v Allen；Re Sigsworth)。
Mischief Rule / 除弊规则： Examine the gap in the old law that the statute intended to cover and interpret to suppress the mischief (Smith v Hughes; Heydon’s Case).
考察旧法中的漏洞，即该法拟填补的缺失，并解释以压制该弊端(Smith v Hughes；Heydon’s Case)。

Additionally, the purposive approach aligns interpretation with the wider purpose of the legislation, heavily used in EU and human rights contexts (Pepper v Hart allows reference to Hansard).

此外，目的解释法使解释与立法的更广泛目的相符，在欧盟和人权语境中广泛使用（Pepper v Hart 允许参考议会记录）。

11. Causation in Criminal Law | 刑法中的因果关系

Causation = Factual causation (the ‘but for’ test) + Legal causation (substantial and operative cause). The prosecution must prove that D’s act was the factual cause of the consequence and that it was a substantial, operating and blameworthy cause. Third‑party acts or medical negligence may break the chain only if they are ‘so independent and potent’ to render D’s acts insignificant (R v Cheshire).

因果关系 = 事实因果关系（“若非”测试）+ 法律因果关系（实质性和操作性的原因）。控方必须证明被告的行为是结果的事实原因，并且是实质性、操作性和应受谴责的原因。第三方行为或医疗过失仅在“如此独立和强有力”以至于被告的行为变得无关紧要时，才会中断因果链（R v Cheshire）。

Factual cause + Substantial cause + Blameworthy cause = Legal causation

事实原因 + 实质性原因 + 应受谴责的原因 = 法律因果关系

Thin skull rule: D must take the victim as found (R v Blaue). Escape cases: the victim’s attempt to escape may be foreseeable and not break the chain (R v Roberts).

薄颅骨规则：被告必须接受受害者的现有状态（R v Blaue）。逃离案例：受害者试图逃跑可能是可预见的，不中断因果链（R v Roberts）。

12. Defences – Intoxication and Self‑defence | 抗辩 – 醉酒与自卫

Intoxication formula: Voluntary intoxication is no defence to basic intent crimes (recklessness suffices, e.g., s.47, s.20, assault, battery, manslaughter). It may be a defence to specific intent crimes (murder, s.18 GBH) if D was so intoxicated as to lack the required intent (DPP v Majewski), in which case liability reduces to the basic intent equivalent. Involuntary intoxication is a full defence if D lacked mens rea (R v Kingston).

醉酒公式： 自愿醉酒对基本故意犯罪（轻率即可，如第47条、第20条、威胁、殴打、过失杀人）不构成抗辩。如果被告醉酒至缺乏所需意图的程度，则可能对特定故意犯罪（谋杀、第18条重伤）构成抗辩（DPP v Majewski），此时责任降为基本故意等价罪行。非自愿醉酒若被告缺乏犯罪意图，则为完全抗辩（R v Kingston）。

Self‑defence formula: D honestly believed the use of force was necessary + The degree of force used was reasonable in the circumstances as D believed them to be (s.76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008; R v Owino). There is no duty to retreat, but it is a factor in reasonableness. Mistaken belief may be relied upon even if unreasonable, but if due to voluntary intoxication it cannot be used.

自卫公式： 被告真诚相信使用武力是必要的 + 根据被告所相信的情况，使用的武力程度是合理的（《2008年刑事司法与移民法》第76条；R v Owino）。没有撤退义务，但这是合理性的一个因素。即使错误认识不合理，也可依赖，但若因自愿醉酒导致的错误认识则不得使用。

Published by TutorHao | Law Revision Series | aleveler.com

更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）

Formula & Theorem Quick Reference Handbook | 公式定理速查手册