📚 IGCSE WJEC Law: Quick Vocabulary Memorisation Guide | IGCSE WJEC 法律：词汇术语速记指南
Mastering legal vocabulary is the first critical step toward success in your IGCSE WJEC Law examination. This guide focuses on high-frequency terms, key definitions, and memorable shortcuts to help you recall complex concepts under pressure. You will learn not only what each phrase means but also how to apply it in problem questions, helping you build the confidence to explain and evaluate legal principles clearly.
掌握法律词汇是在 IGCSE WJEC 法律考试中取得成功的关键第一步。本指南聚焦高频术语、核心定义以及易记的捷径，帮助你在压力下回忆起复杂的概念。你不仅会学到每个短语的含义，还将学会如何在问题分析中应用它们，从而建立清晰解释和评估法律原则的信心。
1. Building Blocks: Actus Reus and Mens Rea | 犯罪构成要素：犯罪行为与犯罪意图
The foundation of criminal liability rests on two Latin pillars: actus reus (the guilty act) and mens rea (the guilty mind). For most offences, the prosecution must prove both elements existed simultaneously. Think of actus reus as the external, physical element – the conduct, its consequences, and any surrounding circumstances that make it unlawful.
刑事责任的基础建立在两个拉丁支柱之上：actus reus（犯罪行为）与 mens rea（犯罪意图）。对于大多数罪行，检方必须证明这两个要素同时存在。你可以把 actus reus 想象成外部的、有形的要素——行为本身、其造成的后果以及使其违法的任何相关情境。
Actus reus can consist of an act, an omission (a failure to act where there is a duty to do so), or a state of affairs. A simple example is theft: the actus reus is the appropriation of property belonging to another. Meanwhile, mens rea refers to the defendant’s mental state – intention, recklessness, or, for some crimes, negligence. A useful memory trick is to pair ‘act’ with ‘action’ and ‘mens’ with ‘mental’.
Actus reus 可以由一个作为、一个不作为（在有义务作为的情况下不履行义务）或一种事态构成。一个简单的例子是盗窃：其 actus reus 是窃取属于他人的财产。与此同时，mens rea 指的是被告的心理状态——可以是故意、轻率，对于某些犯罪来说甚至是疏忽。一个有用的记忆窍门是：将 ‘act’ 与 ‘action’ 关联，将 ‘mens’ 与 ‘mental’ 关联。
2. The Guilty Mind: Types of Mens Rea | 犯罪意图的类型
WJEC examiners expect you to distinguish clearly between the main levels of mens rea. Intention is the highest level: the defendant either wanted the outcome (direct intent) or the outcome was virtually certain and the defendant foresaw that certainty (oblique intent). For quick recall, note that oblique intent was clarified in R v Woollin.
WJEC 考官期望你能清晰地区分犯罪意图的主要层次。故意（Intention） 是最高的层级：被告要么追求结果发生（直接故意），要么结果几乎是必然发生的且被告预见到这种必然性（间接故意）。为了方便记忆，可以注意间接故意的规则是在 R v Woollin 案中得到阐明的。
Recklessness is where the defendant foresaw a risk of the prohibited consequence and unreasonably took that risk. The test is subjective, established in R v G and another. Contrast this with negligence, where the defendant’s conduct falls below the standard of a reasonable person; the defendant need not have personally foreseen the risk. Only rarely does negligence suffice for mens rea, such as in gross negligence manslaughter.
轻率（Recklessness） 是指被告预见到某种被禁止后果发生的风险，却不合理地冒了该风险。这是一个主观检验标准，由 R v G and another 案确立。与此相对的是疏忽（negligence），即被告行为未达到一个理性人的标准；被告本人无需实际预见到该风险。只有极少数情况下疏忽才足以构成犯罪意图，例如重大疏忽过失杀人罪。
Use the mnemonic ‘IRN Bru’ to recall the mental states: Intention, Recklessness, Negligence. Then remember that most serious offences require intention or recklessness.
使用助记符 ‘IRN Bru’ 来回忆这些心理状态：Intention, Recklessness, Negligence。然后记住，最严重的罪行通常要求具备故意或轻率。
3. Strict Liability: No Fault Required | 严格责任：无需过错的犯罪
Strict liability offences break the usual rule by requiring no mens rea for at least part of the actus reus. These are regulatory or quasi-criminal offences, such as selling food beyond its use-by date or driving without insurance. The rationale is public protection and ease of enforcement.
严格责任犯罪打破了通常的规则，不要求对 actus reus 的至少一部分具有犯罪意图。这些通常是管理性或准犯罪行为，例如销售过期食品或无保险驾驶。其理论基础在于保护公众和便于执法。
To identify a strict liability offence, apply the presumption of mens rea test from Sweet v Parsley: courts start by presuming mens rea is required. This presumption can be displaced if the statute deals with an issue of social concern, carries a light penalty, or makes the offence truly criminal only if stigma attaches. The leading case Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General provides the criteria. Remember: ‘Sweet’ comes before ‘Gammon’ – Sweet to take the sweetness of a presumption, Gammon to hammer home the exceptions.
要识别某犯罪是否为严格责任犯罪，应适用源自 Sweet v Parsley 案的犯罪意图推定标准：法院首先推定需要犯罪意图。如果该法规涉及社会关注的议题、处罚较轻，或者仅在带有污名时罪名才真正具有犯罪性质，这一推定就可以被推翻。典型案例 Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General 提供了具体标准。记住：’Sweet’ 在 ‘Gammon’ 之前——Sweet 好比甜甜的推定，而 Gammon 则用锤子敲定例外情形。
4. Omissions and Causation | 不作为与因果关系
An omission can form the actus reus only if the defendant had a legal duty to act. The common law recognises duties from a contract, a special relationship (parent-child), a voluntary assumption of care, creating a dangerous situation, or a statutory duty. The famous case R v Stone and Dobinson is a tragic illustration of a duty arising from assumption of care.
只有当被告负有法律上的作为义务时，不作为才能构成 actus reus。普通法承认的义务来源包括合同义务、特殊关系（父母与子女）、自愿承担照顾责任、制造了危险情境或法定义务。著名案例 R v Stone and Dobinson 就是因承担照顾责任而产生义务的悲剧例证。
For result crimes, the prosecution must also prove causation: both factual causation and legal causation. Factual causation uses the ‘but for’ test: but for the defendant’s conduct, would the result have occurred? Legal causation requires the defendant’s act to be the operating and substantial cause of the harm. An intervening act (novus actus interveniens) can break the chain of causation only if it is free, voluntary and informed, or an extraordinary natural event.
对于结果犯，检方还必须证明因果关系：包括事实因果关系和法律因果关系。事实因果关系采用 ‘but for’ 检验法：如果没有被告的行为，结果会发生吗？法律因果关系要求被告的行为是危害结果的实质性的和起作用的原因。一个介入行为（novus actus interveniens）只有在是自由的、自愿的和有认知的，或是一个异常的自然事件时，才能中断因果关系链条。
5. Fatal Offences: Murder and Manslaughter | 致命犯罪：谋杀与过失杀人
Murder is the most serious homicide offence. Defined by Coke’s Institutes, it is the ‘unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being under the Queen’s peace with malice aforethought, express or implied.’ Modern understanding breaks this down into actus reus (unlawful killing of a human being) and mens rea (intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm). The key memory word here is ‘GBH’: intention for GBH is sufficient for murder.
谋杀是最严重的杀人罪。根据 Coke’s Institutes 的定义，谋杀是“在王国的和平秩序内，怀着明示或默示的预谋恶意，非法杀害一个活生生的生命”。现代理解将其分解为 actus reus（非法杀害一个人）和 mens rea（故意杀人或致人重伤）。这里的关键记忆词是 ‘GBH’：造成重伤的意图就足以构成谋杀。
Voluntary manslaughter arises when the defendant would be guilty of murder but for a partial defence: loss of control (Coroners and Justice Act 2009) or diminished responsibility (Homicide Act 1957, as amended). Involuntary manslaughter, on the other hand, covers unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter. Distinguish these by their core ingredient: unlawful act manslaughter needs an intentional unlawful act (not omission) that was dangerous and caused death; gross negligence manslaughter requires a duty of care, breach of that duty, and a risk of death from grossly negligent conduct.
自愿过失杀人发生在被告本应构成谋杀罪但存在部分辩护理由时：失控（《2009 年死因裁判官及司法法》）或减轻责任（经修订的《1957 年杀人法》）。另一方面，非自愿过失杀人则涵盖了非法及危险行为过失杀人和重大疏忽过失杀人。通过其核心要素来区分它们：非法行为过失杀人需要有一个故意非法且危险的作为（不是不作为）并导致了死亡；重大疏忽过失杀人则要求存在注意义务、违反注意义务以及因重大疏忽行为而带来了死亡风险。
6. Property Offences: Theft, Robbery, Burglary | 财产犯罪：盗窃、抢劫与入室盗窃
Theft, under s.1 Theft Act 1968, is the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive. Memorise the five elements using the acronym ‘DAPIP’: Dishonesty, Appropriation, Property, Belonging to another, Intention to permanently deprive. If any one element is missing, there is no theft.
根据《1968 年盗窃法》第 1 条，盗窃是指以永久剥夺为目的，不诚实地挪占属于他人的财产。使用首字母缩写 ‘DAPIP’ 来记忆这五个要素：Dishonesty（不诚实）、Appropriation（挪占）、Property（财产）、Belonging to another（属于他人）、Intention to permanently deprive（永久剥夺的意图）。如果缺少任何一个要素，就不构成盗窃。
Robbery is theft plus force or the threat of force immediately before or at the time of stealing. Think of it as ‘theft with violence’. There must be a completed or attempted theft; force alone is not enough. Burglary, under s.9 of the same Act, has two forms: entering a building as a trespasser with intent to commit theft, GBH or unlawful damage; or entering as a trespasser and, once inside, committing or attempting to commit theft or GBH. Remember the structure: ‘trespasser + entry + building + ulterior intent/offence’.
抢劫是盗窃加上在盗窃即刻前或盗窃当时使用武力或以武力相威胁。可以将其理解为“盗窃加暴力”。必须存在一个既遂或未遂的盗窃；仅有暴力是不够的。根据同法第 9 条，入室盗窃有两种形式：作为侵入者进入建筑物，怀有实施盗窃、造成重伤或非法毁坏的意图；或作为侵入者进入建筑物后，在其内部实施或试图实施盗窃或造成重伤的行为。记住其结构：’侵入者 + 进入 + 建筑物 + 进一步意图/犯罪’。
| Offence | Actus Reus | Mens Rea |
|---|---|---|
| Theft | Appropriation of property belonging to another | Dishonesty + intention to permanently deprive |
| Robbery | Theft + force or threat of force | Mens rea for theft + intent to use force to steal |
| Burglary (s.9(1)(a)) | Entry as a trespasser into a building | Intent to commit theft, GBH or criminal damage at entry |
犯罪类型: 盗窃(Actus Reus: 挪占属于他人的财产; Mens Rea: 不诚实 + 永久剥夺意图), 抢劫(Actus Reus: 盗窃 + 武力或武力威胁; Mens Rea: 盗窃的犯罪意图 + 使用武力实施盗窃的意图), 入室盗窃s.9(1)(a)(Actus Reus: 作为侵入者进入建筑物; Mens Rea: 进入时有实施盗窃、重伤或刑事毁坏的意图)
7. Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person | 人身非致命犯罪
The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 creates a ladder of non-fatal crimes. Start with assault: causing the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful force (no touching required). Battery is the actual infliction of unlawful force. These are common law offences. Moving up, assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) under s.47 requires an assault or battery causing ‘actual bodily harm’, which can include psychiatric injury.
《1861 年侵害人身罪法》构建了一个非致命犯罪的阶梯。从袭击（assault）开始：使被害人意识到即时非法的武力（无需接触）。殴击（battery） 是指实际施加非法武力。这两者都是普通法罪行。往上一层，第 47 条规定的袭击致身体实际伤害（ABH） 要求一个袭击或殴击行为导致了“人身实际伤害”，其中包括精神损害。
More severe are malicious wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm (GBH) under s.20 and wounding or causing GBH with intent under s.18. The mens rea for s.20 is ‘maliciously’, meaning intention or recklessness; for s.18 it is specific intent to cause GBH or resist arrest. The mnemonic ’20 is plenty reckless, 18 is intent’ can help keep these straight.
更严重的是第 20 条规定的恶意伤人或者造成重伤（GBH） 和第 18 条规定的意图造成重伤的伤人或致重伤。第 20 条的犯罪意图是“恶意地”，意味着故意或者轻率；第 18 条则是造成重伤或拒捕的特定故意。助记符 ’20 is plenty reckless, 18 is intent’ 可以帮助你分清二者。
8. Defences in Criminal Law | 刑事辩护理由
Defences can negate liability even when actus reus and mens rea are present. Intoxication may be voluntary or involuntary. Voluntary intoxication is only a defence to specific intent crimes where it prevents the defendant from forming the required intent; it is no defence to basic intent crimes. Self-defence requires the defendant to have used reasonable force in response to an honestly held belief of an imminent threat.
即使 actus reus 和 mens rea 都存在，辩护理由也可以否定责任。醉酒（Intoxication） 可能为自愿或非自愿。自愿醉酒只能作为特定故意犯罪的辩护理由，当它阻止被告形成必要的故意时成立；对于基本故意犯罪则不构成辩护。自卫（Self-defence） 要求被告在真实确信面临紧迫威胁的情况下使用了合理的武力。
Duress is a defence where the defendant was forced to commit a crime due to a threat of death or serious injury. It is unavailable for murder and certain other serious offences. Necessity is rarely allowed, operating where the defendant faced circumstances forcing a choice between two evils. For your exam, link it to Re A (Children) (conjoined twins). A global memory trigger: ‘INSD’ – Intoxication, Necessity, Self-defence, Duress.
胁迫（Duress） 是一种辩护，指被告因死亡或严重人身伤害的威胁而被迫犯罪。它不适用于谋杀及其他某些严重罪行。紧急避险（Necessity） 极少被允许，适用于被告面临在两种恶果间做出选择的处境。在考试中，将其与 Re A (Children)（连体婴儿案）联系起来。一个全局记忆触发词：’INSD’ – Intoxication（醉酒）, Necessity（紧急避险）, Self-defence（自卫）, Duress（胁迫）。
9. Inchoate Offences: Attempts and Conspiracy | 未完成犯罪：未遂与共谋
Inchoate offences deal with preparatory conduct that did not result in a completed crime. Attempt is governed by the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. The actus reus requires an act that is ‘more than merely preparatory’. The mens rea is an intention to commit the full offence. Even if the substantive offence would have been satisfied with recklessness, attempt always requires intention as to the consequence.
未完成犯罪处理的是尚未导致完成罪行的预备行为。未遂（Attempt） 受《1981 年刑事未遂法》规制。其 actus reus 要求行为“不限于纯预备行为”。其犯罪意图是意图完成整个犯罪。即使实体犯罪满足轻率即可成立，未遂始终要求对结果具有故意。
Conspiracy at common law is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime. No physical act is needed beyond the agreement itself; the actus reus is the agreement, and the mens rea is intent to carry out the crime. It is often used when a plan never reaches the attempt stage. Remember: ‘Conspiracy = agreement + intent’.
普通法上的共谋（Conspiracy） 是指两人或多人之间就实施犯罪达成合意。除合意本身外无需任何物理行为；actus reus 是该合意，mens rea 是实施犯罪的故意。常用于某个计划从未进入未遂阶段的情形。记住：’Conspiracy = agreement + intent’。
10. Parties to a Crime | 犯罪参与人
A person can be liable not only as a principal offender, but also as an accessory. Aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring (sometimes remembered as ‘AACP’) forms the basis of secondary liability. The accessory must have encouraged or assisted the principal and have intended to do so. Importantly, knowledge of the principal’s state of mind is required for procuring.
一个人不仅可以作为主犯承担责任，还可能作为从犯被追责。协助、煽动、参谋或指使（Aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring）——有时记为 ‘AACP’——构成了衍生责任的基础。从犯必须鼓励或帮助了主犯，并有此意图。重要的是，对于指使行为需明知主犯的心理状态。
In reckoning the scope of joint enterprise, if two people embark on a crime and one foresees that the other might commit a further offence, they may be liable for that collateral offence. The Supreme Court in R v Jogee corrected the law, stating that foresight is merely evidence of intent, not a substitute. For your revision, visualise a ‘joint enterprise map’: you start together, and if you can foresee a risk and still continue, you might be drawn into the expanded net of liability.
在考虑共同计划的范围内，若两人着手实施一项犯罪，其中一人预见到另一人可能实施进一步犯罪，该人便可能对该附带犯罪承担责任。最高法院在 R v Jogee 案中修正了法律，指出预见仅是意图的证据，而非替代。为便于复习，不妨在脑中绘制一幅“共同计划地图”：你们一同起步，若能预见风险却仍继续，便可能被拉入扩展的责任网络。
11. Latin Legal Terms Every Student Must Know | 必知拉丁法律术语
WJEC Law peppers its mark schemes with Latin terminology. Beyond actus reus and mens rea, commit these to memory. Novus actus interveniens (a new intervening act) breaks the chain of causation. Obiter dicta (things said by the way) are a judge’s non-binding remarks, while ratio decidendi (the reason for deciding) creates binding precedent.
WJEC 法律考试的评分方案中散落着拉丁术语。除了 actus reus 和 mens rea 外，要将以下术语牢记于心。Novus actus interveniens（新的介入行为）会打断因果关系链条。Obiter dicta（附带意见）是法官的非约束性言论，而 ratio decidendi（判决理由）则创造了有约束力的先例。
Other essential terms include volenti non fit injuria (to a willing person, no injury is done) used in consent defences; doli incapax (incapable of crime) for children under 10; in loco parentis (in place of a parent) describing authority figures; and actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea (an act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty). Write these on flash cards, one side Latin, the other English and a brief explanation.
其他核心术语包括：用于同意辩护的 volenti non fit injuria（对自愿者不构成侵害）；指代 10 岁以下儿童的 doli incapax（无犯罪能力）；描述权威人物的 in loco parentis（代替父母）；以及 actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea（行为不构成犯罪，除非心理也是犯罪的）。将这些术语写在抽认卡上，一面是拉丁语，另一面是英语及简要解释。
12. Memorisation Techniques for Law Students | 法学生的记忆技巧
Active recall and association are your strongest allies. Create quirky stories linking case names to their principles. For example, for the case of R v White (but for test), imagine a white cup of tea – ‘but for’ the tea, the victim would still have died. Visualisation turns dry material into memorable imagery.
主动回忆与联想是你最强有力的帮手。编造奇特的故事情节，将案例名称与它的原则关联起来。例如，对于 R v White（but for 检验法）案，可以想象一杯白色的茶——’but for’ 这杯茶，被害人同样会死亡。形象化能让枯燥的材料变成难忘的图像。
Use colour-coded summary sheets. Red for actus reus elements, blue for mens rea, green for defences. Combine these with the acronyms already mentioned: DAPIP for theft, IRN Bru for mental states, AACP for parties, and INSD for defences. Recite them aloud and teach the concepts to a study partner. The more neural pathways you create, the easier it becomes to retrieve definitions in the exam hall.
使用色彩编码的摘要表。红色代表 actus reus 要素，蓝色代表 mens rea，绿色代表辩护理由。将这些与你已经提到的首字母缩写相结合：盗窃用 DAPIP，心理状态用 IRN Bru，犯罪参与人用 AACP，辩护理由用 INSD。大声背诵并向学习伙伴讲解这些概念。你创造的神经通路越多，在考场上提取定义的难度就越低。
Finally, practise past-paper vocabulary questions under timed conditions. Spot the command words: ‘define’, ‘identify’, ‘outline’. The more you write using the precise terminology, the deeper it will embed. Soon, terms like ‘oblique intent’ and ‘constructive manslaughter’ will flow naturally.
最后，在做往年试卷中的术语题时要计时模拟。留意指令词：“define”、“identify”、“outline”。你用精确术语书写得越多，它们就会铭刻得越深。很快，像“oblique intent”和“constructive manslaughter”这样的术语就会信手拈来。
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Cancel reply