📚 Year 13 Edexcel Law: Key Terminology Memory Guide | Year 13 Edexcel 法律：词汇术语速记指南
This bilingual guide unlocks the essential legal vocabulary for Year 13 Edexcel Law students. By pairing clear English definitions with concise Chinese explanations, it accelerates memory retention and deepens understanding of criminal law, tort, and the legal system. Use it as your daily revision companion to master the terminology that examiners expect.
这份双语指南为 Year 13 Edexcel 法律学生解锁核心法律词汇。通过将清晰的英文定义与简洁的中文解释配对，它能加速记忆并加深对刑法、侵权法和法律体系的理解。把它当作你的日常复习伙伴，掌握考官所期待的术语。
1. Actus Reus & Causation | 犯罪行为与因果关系
Actus reus is the external, physical element of a crime. It can consist of a voluntary act, an omission (where a legal duty exists), or a state of affairs. For example, the actus reus of murder is the unlawful killing of a human being under the King’s peace.
犯罪行为 (Actus reus) 是犯罪的外部、物理要素。它可以由自愿行为、不作为（存在法律义务时）或状态构成。例如，谋杀的犯罪行为是在女王/国王治下非法杀害他人。
Causation links the defendant’s conduct to the prohibited consequence. Factual causation uses the ‘but for’ test (White), while legal causation requires the defendant’s act to be an operating and substantial cause, as seen in Smith. A novus actus interveniens — an intervening act — breaks the chain of causation, such as highly unreasonable medical treatment (Jordan).
因果关系 (Causation) 将被告的行为与被禁止的后果联系起来。事实因果关系采用”若无则不”标准（White案），而法律因果关系要求被告的行为是起作用的实质性原因，如Smith案所示。新介入的行为 (novus actus interveniens) 会中断因果关系链，例如极不合理的医疗处置 (Jordan案)。
2. Mens Rea Terms | 犯罪意图术语
Intention is the highest level of mens rea. Direct intent exists where the defendant desires a specific outcome. Oblique intent arises when the consequence is a virtually certain result of the defendant’s act and the defendant appreciates this (Woollin). In murder, nothing less than intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm will suffice.
故意 (Intention) 是最高层级的犯罪意图。直接故意指被告希望特定结果发生。间接故意指结果几乎是被告行为的必然产物，且被告认识到这一点（Woollin案）。在谋杀罪中，至少需要意图杀人或造成严重身体伤害才足够。
Recklessness involves taking an unjustified risk. The subjective test (Cunningham) asks whether the defendant foresaw the risk of the prohibited consequence and nevertheless went on to take it. It must be objectively unreasonable. Recklessness is the mens rea for most non-fatal offences like assault, battery, and malicious wounding.
轻率 (Recklessness) 涉及冒不正当的风险。主观检验标准（Cunningham案）询问被告是否预见到禁止后果的风险却仍然冒险行事，且该风险客观不合理。轻率是大多数非致命侵害罪（如企图伤害、殴击和恶意伤人）的犯罪意图。
3. Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person | 非致命人身侵害罪
Assault is an act that intentionally or recklessly causes the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence. No physical contact is required; words alone can amount to assault (Ireland). Battery is the intentional or reckless application of unlawful force upon another, such as a tap on the shoulder or spitting.
企图伤害 (Assault) 指故意或轻率地使受害人感知即将遭受非法人身暴力的行为。无需身体接触；仅凭言语也可构成企图伤害（Ireland案）。殴击 (Battery) 是故意或轻率地对他人施加非法武力，如拍肩膀或吐口水。
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) under s.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 occurs when an assault or battery causes ‘actual bodily harm’, including psychiatric injury. The mens rea is that of the base offence.| 造成实际身体伤害的企图伤害 (ABH) 根据1861年《侵害人身罪法》第47条，当企图伤害或殴击造成”实际身体伤害”（包括精神伤害）时成立。其犯罪意图与基础罪行相同。
Malicious wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm (s.20) requires the defendant to maliciously wound or inflict GBH. ‘Wound’ means a break in the continuity of the whole skin. Wounding or causing GBH with intent (s.18) is the most serious non-fatal offence, demanding specific intent to cause GBH or resist arrest.
恶意伤人或者造成严重身体伤害 (s.20) 要求被告恶意地造成创伤或施加GBH。”创伤”指皮肤完整性的破裂。意图造成严重身体伤害的伤人或致伤 (s.18) 是最严重的非致命罪，要求具有造成GBH或拒捕的特定故意。
4. Fatal Offences: Murder & Manslaughter | 致命侵害：谋杀与误杀
Murder is the unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being under the King’s peace with malice aforethought — the intention to kill or cause GBH. The classic definition stems from Coke. A conviction carries a mandatory life sentence.
谋杀 (Murder) 是在国王治下恶意预谋地非法杀害一个有理性的人，即具有杀人或造成GBH的故意。经典定义源自Coke。定罪后必须判处终身监禁。
Voluntary manslaughter occurs when a defendant charged with murder successfully raises a partial defence — loss of control or diminished responsibility. Loss of control (Coroners and Justice Act 2009) requires a loss of self-control, a qualifying trigger such as fear of serious violence, and that a reasonable person might have acted similarly. Diminished responsibility (s.2 Homicide Act 1957) requires an abnormality of mental functioning arising from a recognised medical condition that substantially impaired the defendant’s capacity.
自愿误杀 (Voluntary manslaughter) 发生在被控谋杀的被告成功提出部分辩护——失控或减轻责任时。失控（2009年《验尸官与司法法》）要求失去自我控制、存在符合条件的触发因素（如对严重暴力的恐惧），且正常人也可能如此反应。减轻责任（1957年《杀人法》第2条）要求由公认的医学状况引起的精神功能异常，实质上削弱了被告的能力。
Involuntary manslaughter arises where the defendant lacks the mens rea for murder. Unlawful act manslaughter (Lamb) requires an intentional unlawful act that is dangerous and causes death. Gross negligence manslaughter demands a duty of care, a breach creating a risk of death, and such gross negligence that it amounts to a crime (Adomako).
非自愿误杀 (Involuntary manslaughter) 出现在被告缺乏谋杀的犯罪意图时。非法行为误杀（Lamb案）要求有意的非法行为、该行为具有危险性并导致死亡。重大过失误杀则要求存在注意义务、违反义务造成了死亡风险，且该过失严重到足以构成犯罪（Adomako案）。
5. Property Offences | 财产犯罪
Theft (s.1 Theft Act 1968) is the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive. The actus reus consists of appropriation, property, and belonging to another. Mens rea involves dishonesty (Ivey test: what the defendant knew, and whether the conduct would be considered dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people) and the intention to permanently deprive.
盗窃 (Theft)（1968年《盗窃法》第1条）是指不诚实地占有他人财产，并意图永久剥夺。犯罪行为由侵占、财产、属于他人构成。犯罪意图包括不诚实（Ivey检验标准：被告所知的事实，以及普通正派人士是否认为该行为不诚实）和意图永久剥夺。
Robbery (s.8) is theft plus the use or threat of force immediately before or at the time of stealing, and in order to steal. The force must be on any person. Burglary (s.9) involves entering a building or part of a building as a trespasser with intent to steal, inflict GBH, or cause unlawful damage (s.9(1)(a)), or having entered, then committing theft or GBH (s.9(1)(b)).
抢劫 (Robbery) (第8条) 是盗窃加在盗窃前或盗窃当时为盗窃而使用或威胁使用武力。武力必须施加于任何人。入室盗窃 (Burglary) (第9条) 涉及作为侵入者进入建筑物或建筑部分，意图盗窃、造成GBH或非法损毁(9(1)(a))，或者进入后实施了盗窃或GBH (9(1)(b))。
Criminal damage (Criminal Damage Act 1971) requires the defendant to destroy or damage property belonging to another without lawful excuse, intending or being reckless as to such damage. Aggravated criminal damage adds an intent to endanger life.
刑事损毁 (Criminal damage)（1971年《刑事损毁法》）要求被告无合法理由摧毁或损坏他人财产，对此结果持故意或轻率。加重的刑事损毁还须具有危及生命的故意。
6. General Defences | 一般辩护
Insanity is determined by the M’Naghten Rules. The defendant must prove on a balance of probabilities that at the time of the act he was suffering from a defect of reason arising from a disease of the mind, so that he did not know the nature and quality of his act or did not know it was wrong. Automatism is an involuntary act caused by an external factor, such as a blow to the head, which results in a complete loss of voluntary control. It must not be self-induced.
精神错乱 (Insanity) 由M’Naghten规则确定。被告须以或然性权衡证明，在行为时因精神疾病导致理性缺陷，致使其不了解行为的性质和性质，或不知行为是错误的。自动症 (Automatism) 是由外部因素（如头部击打）引起的非自愿行为，导致完全丧失自主控制。它不得是自我诱导的。
Intoxication can be voluntary or involuntary. Voluntary intoxication is a defence only to specific intent crimes (e.g., murder, s.18 GBH) if it negates the intent. Involuntary intoxication — where the defendant is not at fault — can be a defence to any crime if it negates mens rea. Self-defence allows reasonable force to protect oneself or another. Section 76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 codifies the test: genuine belief and reasonable force in the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be.
醉酒 (Intoxication) 可分为自愿和非自愿。自愿醉酒仅在否定特定故意时可作为特定故意罪（如谋杀、第18条GBH）的辩护。非自愿醉酒——被告无过错——若能否定犯罪意图，则可为任何犯罪辩护。自卫 (Self-defence) 允许以合理武力保护自己或他人。2008年《刑事司法与移民法》第76条将检验标准法典化：真实相信及其所信情形下使用合理武力。
7. Negligence: Duty, Breach & Damage | 过失：义务、违反与损害
Duty of care is established via the Caparo three-part test: foreseeability of harm, proximity between claimant and defendant, and whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty. The neighbour principle from Donoghue v Stevenson remains foundational.
注意义务 (Duty of care) 通过Caparo三步检验法确立：损害的可预见性、原告与被告之间的近邻关系，以及施加义务是否公平、公正且合理。Donoghue v Stevenson案中的邻人原则仍然是基础。
Breach of duty asks whether the defendant fell below the standard of the reasonable person. The court considers risk factors: the magnitude of risk (Bolton v Stone), the likelihood of harm (Roe v Minister of Health), the seriousness of potential harm (Paris v Stepney), the cost and practicality of precautions, and any social utility of the conduct.
违反义务 (Breach of duty) 审查被告是否未达到理性人的标准。法院考量风险因素：风险的大小（Bolton v Stone案）、损害的可能性（Roe v Minister of Health案）、潜在伤害的严重性（Paris v Stepney案）、采取预防措施的成本与可行性，以及该行为的社会效用。
Causation and remoteness apply in tort as in crime: the ‘but for’ test and legal causation, plus the rule that damage must not be too remote (The Wagon Mound). The defendant must take the claimant as found — the thin skull rule. Defences such as contributory negligence reduce damages proportionately.
因果关系与遥远性 (Causation and remoteness) 在侵权中与刑法类似：”若无则不”标准和法律因果关系，并附加损害不得过于遥远规则（The Wagon Mound案）。被告必须接受原告的先天脆弱体质——”蛋壳脑袋”规则。如共同过失等抗辩按比例减少赔偿。
8. Occupiers’ Liability | 占用者责任
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 governs the duty owed to lawful visitors. The occupier must take reasonable care to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the permitted purpose. The duty covers the state of the premises and things done or omitted on them. Children require a higher standard of care because they are less able to appreciate risks (Glasgow Corp v Taylor).
1957年《占用者责任法》 规范对合法访客所负义务。占用者须采取合理注意，确保访客在许可目的下使用场所时合理安全。该义务涵盖场所状况及在其上所做或疏于做之事。儿童需要更高标准照顾，因为他们辨别风险的能力较弱（Glasgow Corp v Taylor案）。
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 imposes a limited duty on occupiers towards trespassers. A duty arises only where the occupier is aware of the danger, knows that a trespasser may come into the vicinity, and the risk is one against which the occupier may reasonably be expected to offer some protection. The duty is to take such care as is reasonable to see that the trespasser does not suffer injury on the premises.
1984年《占用者责任法》 对侵入者施加了有限义务。仅在占用者知晓危险、知道侵入者可能进入附近区域、且该风险是合理期望占用者提供某种保护的情况下，才会产生义务。其义务是采取合理注意，保障侵入者不在该场所遭受人身伤害。
9. Vicarious Liability & Private Nuisance | 替代责任与私人妨害
Vicarious liability imposes strict liability on an employer for torts committed by an employee in the course of employment. The ‘Salmond test’ focuses on whether the wrongful act is so closely connected with authorised acts that it can be regarded as a mode of performing them. The recent ‘close connection’ stage-two approach (Mohamud v Morrisons) looks at the nature of the job and whether there was sufficient connection between that employment and the wrongdoing.
替代责任 (Vicarious liability) 是雇主对雇员在雇佣过程中所犯侵权行为的严格责任。”Salmond检验”侧重于错误行为是否与授权行为紧密相连，以至于可被视为履行该授权行为的一种方式。近期的”密切联系”二阶段方法（Mohamud v Morrisons案）考察工作的性质以及雇佣与不法行为之间是否存在充分联系。
Private nuisance protects an occupier’s right to the reasonable enjoyment of land. It requires an unreasonable interference (measured by locality, duration, sensitivity, and malice) causing actual damage or loss of amenity. Public nuisance is a crime and a tort that interferes with the comfort and convenience of the public at large; a claimant must suffer special damage above the general public. Rylands v Fletcher imposes strict liability for damage caused by the escape of a dangerous thing likely to do mischief brought onto land for a non-natural use.
私人妨害 (Private nuisance) 保护占用者合理享用土地的权利。它要求存在不合理的干扰（通过地点、时长、敏感性和恶意来衡量），并造成了实际损害或舒适感丧失。公共妨害 (Public nuisance) 既是犯罪也是侵权，干扰公众整体的舒适与便利；原告必须遭受超出一般公众的特殊损害。Rylands v Fletcher规则对因非自然使用土地上引入的有可能造成损害的危险物外溢造成的损害施加严格责任。
10. Tort Defences & Remedies | 侵权抗辩与补救
Contributory negligence applies where the claimant fails to take reasonable care for their own safety and that failure contributes to the damage suffered. The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 allows a court to reduce damages proportionately. This is a partial defence.
共同过失 (Contributory negligence) 适用于原告未能对自己安全尽合理注意，且该疏忽促成了所受损害。1945年《法律改革（共同过失）法》允许法院按比例减少赔偿金。这是一项部分抗辩。
Volenti non fit injuria (consent) is a complete defence: a claimant who voluntarily accepts the risk of harm cannot sue. The defendant must prove the claimant had full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk and freely consented to it (ICI v Shatwell). Illegality (ex turpi causa) may bar a claim where the claimant’s cause of action is founded on an illegal act.
自愿者不受害 (Volenti non fit injuria)（同意）是完全抗辩：自愿接受损害风险的原告不能起诉。被告须证明原告充分了解风险的性质和程度并自愿同意（ICI v Shatwell案）。违法性 (Illegality)（ex turpi causa）可在原告的诉因建立在自身非法行为之上时禁止其索赔。
Remedies in tort aim to restore the claimant to the position they were in before the tort. Compensatory damages cover lost earnings, medical expenses, and pain and suffering. Special damages are specifically quantifiable losses, while general damages are non-pecuniary. An injunction may be granted to prevent an ongoing or threatened nuisance.
侵权补救 (Remedies in tort) 旨在使原告恢复到侵权前的状态。补偿性损害赔偿 涵盖收入损失、医疗费用及疼痛与痛苦。特别损害赔偿 是可具体量化的损失，而一般损害赔偿 是非金钱性质。可颁发禁制令以阻止持续或威胁性的妨害。
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