📚 Year 13 Edexcel Law: Formula & Theorems Quick Reference Handbook | 爱德思高三法律：公式定理速查手册
This handbook presents essential criminal and tort law principles as concise ‘formulae’ and ‘theorems’, designed for quick revision and precise application in Edexcel Year 13 problem questions. Each section distils a key legal rule into a structural equation, supported by leading cases and doctrinal requirements. Mastering these patterns will help you transform open-ended scenarios into logical, high-mark answers.
本手册将核心刑法与侵权法原则提炼为简明的“公式”与“定理”，专为爱德思高三法律问题题的快速复习与精准应用而设计。每一小节将一条关键法律规则转化为结构性方程式，并辅以主导判例与要件要求。熟记这些模式，可以帮助你把开放式情景转化为逻辑清晰、高分在握的答案。
1. The Criminal Liability Equation | 刑事责任方程式
All criminal offences can be broken down into an overriding liability equation, remembering that the prosecution bears the legal and evidential burden of proof to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt (Woolmington v DPP). The basic formula is:
所有刑事犯罪都可以拆解为一个整体的责任方程式，切记控方承担法定与证据上的举证责任，证明标准为排除合理怀疑（伍尔明顿诉检察总长案）。基本公式如下：
Actus Reus + Mens Rea + (No Complete Defence) = Conviction
犯罪行为 + 犯罪意图 + (无完全抗辩) = 定罪
Actus reus and mens rea must coincide in time (the contemporaneity rule), as illustrated in Fagan v MPC where the continuing act of driving onto a constable’s foot satisfied this requirement. If a full defence such as self-defence or duress succeeds, the equation collapses.
犯罪行为与犯罪意图必须在时间上重合（同时性原则），如法根诉大都会警察局局长案中持续将车开上警察脚面的行为满足了这一要件。如果正当防卫、胁迫等完全抗辩成立，方程式即崩溃。
2. Actus Reus: The Physical Element Formula | 犯罪行为要素公式
The actus reus of a result crime contains three components: conduct (an act or qualifying omission), circumstances, and a prohibited result. The general structure can be memorised as:
结果犯的犯罪行为包含三项要素：行为（作为或符合条件的义务缺失）、情节与违禁结果。通用结构可记为：
Act_or_Omission + Prescribed Circumstances + Result → Actus Reus
作为或义务缺失作为 + 规定情节 + 结果 → 犯罪行为
An omission will only constitute an actus reus where a legal duty to act exists. Duties arise via statute (e.g. s.6 Road Traffic Act 1988), contract (Pittwood), relationship (Gibbins and Proctor), assumption of care (Stone and Dobinson), creation of a dangerous situation (Miller), or public office (Dytham).
仅当存在法定作为义务时，不作为才构成犯罪行为。义务源于制定法（如1988年《道路交通法》第6条）、合同（皮特伍德案）、关系（吉宾斯与普罗克特案）、承担照料（斯通与多宾森案）、制造危险情形（米勒案）或公职（戴瑟姆案）。
3. Mens Rea: The Mental Element Theorems | 犯罪意图定理
Mens rea principles can be expressed as a series of theorems distinguishing direct intention, oblique intention, recklessness and negligence. The key theorem for oblique intention, derived from R v Woollin, is:
犯罪意图的原理可用一系列区分直接故意、间接故意、轻率与疏忽的定理表述。从R诉伍林案中推导出的间接故意核心定理为：
If (a) the result was a virtually certain consequence of D’s act,
AND (b) D foresaw it as a virtually certain consequence,
→ The jury MAY find intention.
如果 (a) 结果是被告行为客观上几乎确定的后果，
并且 (b) 被告也预见到它几乎是确定的后果，
→ 陪审团可以认定故意。
Recklessness is satisfied where D foresees an unjustified risk and takes it anyway (R v G). Negligence penalises a person who should have foreseen a risk if the reasonable person would have done so; it alone is insufficient for most serious crimes unless expressly provided by statute.
当被告预见到一个不合理的风险并仍然为之，即满足轻率标准（R诉G案）。疏忽惩罚的是一个应当预见风险而未能预见的人，标准为理性人应当预见；除制定法明文规定外，单独疏忽不足以构成多数重罪。
4. Causation Theorems | 因果关系定理
Causation applies to all result crimes and is established by a two-limb theorem: factual (‘but-for’) causation and legal causation. The theorem must be applied in sequence:
因果关系适用于所有结果犯，通过双分支定理确立：事实因果关系（“若非”）与法律因果关系。定理须按序适用：
Factual Causation (But-For Test: R v White)
+ Legal Causation (Substantial & Operating Cause: R v Pagett)
→ Chain of causation intact → D caused the result.
事实因果（若非测试：R诉怀特案）
+ 法律因果（实质且有效起因：R诉佩吉特案）
→ 因果链条完整 → 被告造成该结果。
Intervening acts (novus actus interveniens) may break the chain. Medical negligence rarely breaks causation unless it is ‘so potent in causing death’ that the original wound becomes insignificant (R v Cheshire). The victim’s own act will break the chain only if it is daft and unforeseeable (R v Roberts) or an unreasonable response (R v Williams and Davis). The ‘thin skull’ rule states D must take the victim as found (R v Blaue).
介入行为（新介入行为）可能打断因果链。医疗过失很少打断因果关系，除非它“在致死上极其有力”使得原始损伤变得无关紧要（R诉切舍尔案）。被害人自身行为仅在愚蠢且不可预见时（R诉罗伯茨案）或构成不合理反应时（R诉威廉姆斯与戴维斯案）才会打断因果链。“薄颅骨”规则指被告须全盘接受被害人既有体质（R诉布劳案）。
5. Strict Liability Formula | 严格责任公式
Strict liability offences require no proof of mens rea for at least part of the actus reus—a significant deviation from the general equation. The applicable formula is:
严格责任犯罪至少就犯罪行为的一部分不要求证明犯罪意图——这是对总方程式的重大偏离。适用公式为：
Proscribed Act (+ Prescribed Circumstances) → Guilt (no mens rea needed for that element)
违禁行为 (+ 规定情节) → 有罪（该要素无需证明犯罪意图）
Such offences are mainly regulatory (e.g. selling alcohol to a minor, food safety) and are justified on grounds of public protection. Examples include Harrow LBC v Shah (selling a lottery ticket to a minor) and Callow v Tillstone (unsound meat). The presumption of mens rea can be displaced where the statute is silent and the offence is regulatory rather than truly criminal (Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General). Due diligence defences may be available if provided by statute.
此类犯罪主要属于监管型（如向未成年人售酒、食品安全），并以公共保护为正当理由。判例包括哈罗伦敦自治市诉沙阿案（向未成年人出售彩票）和卡罗诉蒂尔斯通案（不洁肉类）。当制定法未作规定且罪行属于监管性质而非真正刑事时，可推翻对犯罪意图的推定（加蒙（香港）有限公司诉总检察长案）。若成文法规定有克尽职责抗辩，亦可适用。
6. Murder and Voluntary Manslaughter Equations | 谋杀与自愿过失杀人方程式
Murder is a result crime and its fixed definition produces a rigid equation:
谋杀是结果犯，其固定定义产生一个严格方程式：
Unlawful Killing of a Reasonable Person in Being under the King’s Peace
+ Intention to Kill or Cause Grievous Bodily Harm (R v Cunningham)
→ Murder (mandatory life sentence)
在王治和平下非法杀害活着的理性人
+ 意图杀人或造成严重身体伤害（R诉坎宁安案）
→ 谋杀（法定终身监禁）
Voluntary manslaughter arises where the defendant satisfies an adequate-defence theorem. If a partial defence is raised successfully, the conviction equation modifies to:
自愿过失杀人发生在被告满足一项部分抗辩定理之时。若部分抗辩成功成立，定罪方程式修改为：
Murder Equation – (Diminished Responsibility / Loss of Control / Suicide Pact) → Voluntary Manslaughter
谋杀方程式 – (责任能力减轻 / 失控 / 自杀协议) → 自愿过失杀人
Diminished responsibility (s.2 Homicide Act 1957, amended by s.52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009) requires abnormality of mental functioning, arising from a recognised medical condition, which substantially impaired D’s ability to understand his conduct, form a rational judgment or exercise self-control, and provides an explanation for the killing. Loss of control (ss.54–55) requires a qualifying trigger (fear of serious violence or things said/done of an extremely grave character and giving a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged) and that a person of D’s sex and age with normal tolerance and self-restraint might have reacted similarly.
责任能力减轻（1957年《杀人法》第2条，经2009年《死因裁判官与司法法案》第52条修订）要求存在精神功能异常，源于被认可的医学状况，实质上削弱了被告理解自身行为、形成理性判断或行使自我控制的能力，并为杀人行为提供解释。失控（第54-55条）要求符合资格事由（对严重暴力的恐惧，或言行具有极端严重性质并使被告产生被严重冤枉的合理感），且与被告同性别、同龄、具有正常容忍与自我克制能力的人在类似情况下可能作出相似反应。
7. Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Formulae | 人身非致命犯罪公式
The ladder of non-fatal offences is structured by a hierarchy of formulae, each building on the core components of actus reus and mens rea:
人身非致命犯罪的阶梯由一系列层次分明的公式构成，每一个都建立在犯罪行为与犯罪意图的核心要素之上：
| Offence | Formula | 定义 |
|---|---|---|
| Assault | Causing V to apprehend immediate unlawful force + intention or recklessness as to causing that apprehension (Logdon v DPP) | 袭击：使被害人担忧即时的非法暴力 + 有意或轻率造成该担忧 |
| Battery | Infliction of unlawful personal force + intention or recklessness as to that infliction (Collins v Wilcock) | 殴打：施加非法人身暴力 + 有意或轻率施加 |
| s.47 ABH | Assault or battery + causing actual bodily harm (hurt or injury calculated to interfere with health or comfort; Chan-Fook) + same mens rea as for assault/battery (Roberts) | 第47条实际人身伤害：袭击或殴打 + 造成实际身体伤害（伤害或损伤足以干扰健康或舒适）+ 与袭击/殴打相同的犯罪意图 |
| s.20 GBH | Unlawful wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm + intention or recklessness as to some harm (recklessness ‘subjective’: Mowatt) | 第20条严重身体伤害：非法致伤或造成严重身体伤害 + 有意或轻率造成某些伤害（主观轻率：莫瓦特案） |
| s.18 GBH | Unlawfully wounding or causing GBH + intention to cause GBH OR to resist/prevent lawful apprehension (specific intent) | 第18条严重身体伤害：非法致伤或造成严重身体伤害 + 故意造成严重身体伤害或抗拒/阻止合法拘捕（特定故意） |
Note that for s.47 the prosecution need only prove the mens rea of the original assault or battery; there is no requirement to prove foresight of actual bodily harm (R v Savage; DPP v Parmenter).
注意对于第47条，检方只需证明最初袭击或殴打的犯罪意图；无需证明对实际身体伤害的预见（R诉萨维奇案；检察总长诉帕门特案）。
8. Property Offences Formulae | 财产犯罪公式
Theft is defined in s.1 Theft Act 1968 as the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with intention to permanently deprive. The formula can be dissected:
盗窃由1968年《盗窃法》第1条界定为不诚实地挪用属于他人的财产并意图永久剥夺。公式可拆解为：
Appropriation (s.3: assuming any right of owner, even with consent, Gomez)
+ Property (s.4)
+ Belonging to Another (s.5)
+ Dishonesty (s.2: statutory exclusions and common law test from Ivey v Genting Casinos)
+ Intention to Permanently Deprive (s.6) → Theft
挪用（第3条：行使所有人的任何权利，即使经同意，戈麦斯案）
+ 财产（第4条）
+ 属于他人（第5条）
+ 不诚实（第2条：法定排除与艾维诉云顶赌场案的普通法标准）
+ 永久剥夺意图（第6条）→ 盗窃
Robbery (s.8) adds force or putting/seeking to put a person in fear of force immediately before or at the time of stealing, transforming the theft equation into:
抢劫（第8条）在盗窃的紧接之前或当时加入使用武力或使/试图使人恐惧受到即时武力，使盗窃方程式转变为：
Theft + Force or Threat of Force → Robbery
盗窃 + 武力或武力威胁 → 抢劫
9. General Defences Theorems | 一般抗辩定理
Defences can be expressed as conditional theorems that, if satisfied, negate criminal liability. The two most frequently invoked general defences operate as follows:
抗辩可以表述为条件定理，若满足，则否定刑事责任。两个最常援引的一般抗辩运行如下：
Self-Defence / Prevention of Crime (s.3 Criminal Law Act 1967):
D honestly believed force was necessary AND the force used was reasonable in the circumstances as D believed them to be → Acquittal
正当防卫 / 预防犯罪（1967年刑法法案第3条）：
被告真诚地相信必须使用武力，且所使用的武力在被告所相信的情形下是合理的 → 无罪
The test for reasonableness is objective, but it takes account of the defendant’s genuine belief even if mistaken, unless the mistake is due to voluntary intoxication (R v O’Grady; R v Williams (Gladstone)). The householder provision (s.76(5A) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008) allows disproportionate but not grossly disproportionate force in dwelling cases.
合理性审查为客观标准，但考量被告真诚的信念，即使该信念有误，除非错误源于自愿醉酒（R诉奥格雷迪案；R诉威廉姆斯(格拉德斯通)案）。住户条款（2008年《刑事司法与移民法》第76(5A)条）允许在住宅情形中使用不成比例但不至于极其过度的武力。
Duress by Threats:
(1) Threat of death or serious injury to D or another;
(2) Reasonable belief the threat will be carried out;
(3) No reasonable evasive action;
(4) A sober person of reasonable firmness sharing D’s characteristics would have acted similarly (R v Graham; R v Hasan) → Acquittal (except for murder/manslaughter by duress in certain old categories)
威胁胁迫：
（1）对被告或他人有死亡或严重伤害的威胁；
（2）合理相信威胁将被实施；
（3）不存在合理的回避行动；
（4）拥有同等特质、顽固合理的清醒之人在同样情况下会有类似行为（R诉格雷厄姆案；R诉哈桑案）→ 无罪（但谋杀不适用，部分旧类别过失杀人可能适用）
10. Negligence Liability Formula | 过失侵权责任公式
The tort of negligence is the most commonly litigated civil wrong and can be summed up in a three-stage formula:
过失侵权是最常被诉的民事不法行为，可总结为三阶段公式：
Duty of Care (Caparo test: foreseeability, proximity, fair just and reasonable)
+ Breach (reasonable person standard, Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks; risk factors from Bolton v Stone and Paris v Stepney BC)
+ Causation (factual: but-for, Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington HMC; legal: remoteness, reasonable foreseeability of type of damage: Wagon Mound No.1)
+ Damage not too remote → Liability
注意义务（卡帕罗测试：可预见性、邻近性、公平合理）
+ 违反义务（理性人标准，布莱斯诉伯明翰水务公司案；风险因素见博尔顿诉斯通案与帕里斯诉斯特普尼自治市议会案）
+ 因果关系（事实：若非，巴尼特诉切尔西与肯辛顿医院管理委员会案；法律：遥远性，损害类型合理可预见：第一号货车星案）
+ 损害非过于遥远 → 责任
Special duty situations include psychiatric injury, where claimants must qualify as primary victims (in the zone of danger) or secondary victims (satisfying Alcock control mechanisms: close ties of love and affection, proximity in time and space, sudden shock, and psychiatric illness must be a medically recognised condition). Pure economic loss is generally irrecoverable unless there is a special relationship of proximity (Hedley Byrne v Heller) or the loss arises from negligent provision of services, statements, or defective items within a limited scope.
特殊注意义务情形包括精神损害，其中索赔人须符合首要受害人（处于危险区域）或次要受害人（满足阿尔科克案的控制机制：亲密爱意关系、时空接近、突然震惊，且精神疾病须是医学认可的状况）。纯经济损失一般不可获偿，除非存在特殊接近关系（赫德利·伯恩诉赫勒案）或损失源于有限范围内服务的疏忽提供、陈述或缺陷物品。
11. Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957/1984 Equations | 占用人责任公式
Occupiers’ liability is governed by two statutes, each with a distinct equation based on the visitor’s status.
占用人责任受两部制定法调整，根据访问者身份不同各有独特方程式。
OLA 1957 (Lawful Visitors):
Occupier fails to take reasonable care (s.2(2))
+ Visitor suffers damage from a danger on the premises
+ Child visitors: higher standard, occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful (Glasgow Corp v Taylor)
+ Warnings and independent contractors may discharge duty (ss.2(4)-(5))
→ Liability
1957年占用人责任法（合法来访者）：
占用人未能采取合理注意（第2(2)条）
+ 来访者因场所危险遭受损害
+ 儿童来访者：标准更高，占用人须预见儿童较不谨慎（格拉斯哥公司诉泰勒案）
+ 警示与独立承包商可解除义务（第2(4)-(5)条）
→ 责任
OLA 1984 (Trespassers):
(1) Occupier is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists;
(2) Knows or has reasonable grounds to believe a trespasser is in or may come into the vicinity of the danger;
(3) Risk is one against which, in all the circumstances, the occupier may reasonably be expected to offer some protection (Ratcliff v McConnell)
+ Duty to take such
Published by TutorHao | Year 13 法律 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