📚 Year 13 OCR Law: Key Principles & Tests Quick Reference | Year 13 OCR 法律：核心原则与测试速查手册
Welcome to your essential quick reference guide for Year 13 OCR Law. This handbook distils critical legal principles, tests, and ‘formulas’ across the core areas of the A-Level syllabus: Criminal Law, Tort Law, the Nature of Law, and Human Rights Law. Unlike subjects such as Mathematics or Physics, legal ‘formulas’ take the form of structured legal tests, multi-part definitions, and elemental breakdowns that must be memorized and applied precisely in examination scenarios. This guide presents these in a clear, bilingual format to reinforce understanding and recall.
欢迎使用这份 Year 13 OCR 法律核心速查手册。本手册提炼了 A-Level 教学大纲中刑法、侵权法、法律本质以及人权法等领域的关键法律原则、测试方法和“公式”。与数学或物理等学科不同，法律的“公式”表现为结构化的法律测试、多部分定义和要素分解，你必须在考试情境中准确记忆和应用这些内容。本指南以清晰的双语形式呈现，以加深理解和记忆。
1. Actus Reus: The Guilty Act | 犯罪行为：有罪行为
The actus reus constitutes the external, physical element of a crime. It can consist of an act, an omission (where a duty exists), or a state of affairs. For result crimes, the prosecution must establish that the defendant’s conduct caused the prohibited consequence. This involves a two-stage test: factual causation and legal causation.
犯罪行为构成了罪行的外部、物理要件。它可以包括一个作为、一个不作为（在存在义务的情况下）或一种事态。对于结果犯，检方必须证明被告的行为导致了被禁止的后果。这涉及一个两阶段测试：事实因果关系和法律因果关系。
The factual causation test is the ‘but for’ test: but for the defendant’s actions, would the result have occurred? The case of R v White (1910) demonstrates this, where the defendant put cyanide in his mother’s drink, but she died of a heart attack before drinking it. He was not the factual cause of death.
事实因果关系测试是“若无则不”测试：若非被告的行为，该结果是否会发生？ R v White (1910) 案说明了这一点：被告在他母亲的饮料中下毒，但她因心脏病发作而死，并未喝下饮料。他并非死亡的事实原因。
Legal causation requires the defendant’s act to be the ‘operating and substantial cause’ of the result, as in R v Smith (1959). It must be more than a minimal cause. The chain of causation can be broken by an intervening act (novus actus interveniens), such as a third-party act, the victim’s own act, or an unforeseeable natural event. Medical negligence will only break the chain if it is ‘so potent’ as to make the original wounds merely part of the history, as per R v Cheshire (1991). The ‘thin skull’ rule (R v Blaue (1975)) means the defendant must take the victim as found.
法律因果关系要求被告的行为是结果的“实质且有效的原因”，如 R v Smith (1959) 案所示。它必须不仅仅是微不足道的原因。因果关系链条可被介入行为（新介入行为）打破，例如第三方行为、受害人自身行为或不可预见的自然事件。按照 R v Cheshire (1991) 案的判定，医疗过失只有在其“效力如此强大”以致于最初伤害仅成为事件背景时，才会打破因果链。“薄头骨”规则（R v Blaue (1975) 案）意味着被告必须接受受害人的既有状况。
2. Mens Rea: The Guilty Mind | 犯罪意图：有罪心理
Mens rea is the mental element of a crime. The highest form is direct intent (R v Mohan (1975)), where the defendant aims, desires, or decides to bring about a consequence. The second form is oblique intent, where the consequence is a virtual certainty of the defendant’s actions, and the defendant appreciates this. The test from R v Woollin (1999) requires a two-part inquiry: (1) was the death or serious injury a virtual certainty of the defendant’s action? (2) did the defendant foresee it as a virtual certainty?
犯罪意图是罪行的心理要件。最高形式是直接故意（R v Mohan (1975) 案），即被告意图、渴望或决定造成某种结果。第二种形式是间接故意，即结果属于被告行为的必然结果，并且被告认识到这一点。 R v Woollin (1999) 案中的测试要求进行两步调查：(1) 死亡或严重伤害是否是被告行为的必然结果？ (2) 被告是否预见到这是一种必然结果？
Recklessness involves taking an unjustified risk. The test is subjective, from R v Cunningham (1957): (1) did the defendant foresee the risk of the prohibited consequence? and (2) did they go on to take that risk anyway? For criminal damage, the narrower R v G and Another (2003) test confirms that the defendant must be aware of the risk themselves. Negligence, a lower mental state, is an objective test comparing the defendant’s actions to the standard of a reasonable person. Transferred malice (R v Latimer (1886)) transfers the mens rea from an intended victim to the actual victim, provided the crime is the same type.
轻率涉及冒不合理的风险。测试是主观的，源自 R v Cunningham (1957) 案：(1) 被告是否预见到被禁止后果的风险？ (2) 他们是否仍然冒了这个风险？对于刑事毁坏，更狭义的 R v G and Another (2003) 案测试确认，被告必须自己意识到该风险。过失是一种更低级别的心理状态，是一个将被告行为与正常合理人标准比较的客观测试。转移恶意（R v Latimer (1886) 案）将犯罪意图从意图中的受害人转移到实际受害人身上，前提是罪行属于同一类型。
3. The Duty of Care in Negligence | 过失侵权中的注意义务
In Tort Law, a claim in negligence requires the establishment of a duty of care. The modern test originates from Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990) and is a tripartite formula: (1) foreseeability of damage—was it reasonably foreseeable that the defendant’s carelessness could cause damage to the claimant? (2) proximity—was there a relationship of sufficient closeness between the parties? and (3) fair, just and reasonable—is it fair, just and reasonable on policy grounds to impose a duty?
在侵权法中，过失索赔需要确立注意义务。现代测试源自 Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990) 案，是一个三元公式：(1) 损害的可预见性——被告的疏忽导致原告受到损害是否属于可合理预见？ (2) 关联性——当事人之间是否存在足够密切的关系？ (3) 公平、公正和合理——基于政策考量，施加一项注意义务是否公平、公正且合理？
For established duty situations, such as doctor-patient, road user-road user, or employer-employee, the duty is automatic. The Caparo test is applied primarily in novel duty situations. This formula must be referenced precisely when analyzing problem questions, as missing one limb can cause a claim to fail at its first hurdle.
对于既定的义务情形，如医患关系、道路使用者之间或雇主与雇员之间，该义务是自动确立的。 Caparo 测试主要适用于新型注意义务情形。在分析问题类题目时，必须精确引用此公式，因为缺少任何一个要件都可能导致索赔在第一关就失败。
4. Breach of Duty: The Reasonable Man Formula | 违反义务：合理人公式
Once a duty of care is established, the claimant must prove the defendant breached that duty. The standard is the objective, reasonable person test from Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks (1856) : negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.
一旦注意义务确立，原告必须证明被告违反了该义务。标准是来自 Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks (1856) 案的客观合理人测试：过失就是未做合理人会做的事，或做了谨慎和合理的人不会做的事。
The court weighs up risk factors to determine the required standard of care. This balancing act is a practical formula:
Reasonable Precaution ∝ Probability of Harm × Magnitude of Harm ÷ (Social Value of Activity × Cost of Prevention)
Practically, this means the court considers: (1) the probability of harm (Bolton v Stone (1951)—cricket ball outside ground, low probability, no breach), (2) the magnitude of potential harm (Paris v Stepney BC (1951)—one-eyed worker, higher magnitude, higher standard), (3) the social utility of the activity (Watt v Hertfordshire CC (1954)—fire service, high social utility, not breached), and (4) the cost and practicality of precautions (Latimer v AEC (1953)—factory flooded, low risk relative to cost, not breached). Special standards apply to professionals (Bolam v Friern HMC (1957), modified by Montgomery (2015) for medical disclosure) and learners (Nettleship v Weston (1971)—learner driver judged against competent driver).
法庭会权衡风险因素以确定所需的注意标准。这项平衡行为是一个实用公式：
合理预防措施 ∝ 伤害发生概率 × 伤害严重程度 ÷ (活动的社会价值 × 预防成本)
在实践中，这意味着法院会考虑：(1) 伤害发生的概率（Bolton v Stone (1951) 案——板球飞出球场，低概率，无违反），(2) 潜在伤害的严重程度（Paris v Stepney BC (1951) 案——单眼工人，较高的严重程度意味着更高的注意标准），(3) 活动的社会效用（Watt v Hertfordshire CC (1954) 案——消防队，高社会效用，未违反义务），以及 (4) 预防措施的成本与可行性（Latimer v AEC (1953) 案——工厂被淹，相对于成本风险较低，未违反义务）。特殊标准适用于专业人士（Bolam v Friern HMC (1957) 案，由 Montgomery (2015) 案在医疗披露方面修正）和学习者（Nettleship v Weston (1971) 案——学习驾驶员以合格驾驶员标准评判）。
5. Causation in Negligence: The Damage Formula | 过失侵权中的因果关系：损害赔偿公式
Even with a breach, the claimant must prove that the breach caused their actionable damage. The test mirrors criminal law but applies in a tortious context. Factual causation applies the ‘but for’ test (Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington HMC (1969)—even if a doctor had examined the patient, arsenic poisoning was already terminal, so breach did not cause death).
即使存在违反义务，原告仍须证明该违反行为导致了其可诉的损害。该测试与刑法相似，但适用于侵权语境。事实因果关系适用“若无则不”测试（Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington HMC (1969) 案——即使医生当时检查了病人，砷中毒也已是致命的，因此违反义务并非死亡原因）。
Legal causation requires the damage to be of a type that was reasonably foreseeable. This is the test of remoteness of damage from The Wagon Mound (No 1) (1961). If the type of damage is unforeseeable, it is too remote. The ‘thin skull’ rule applies here too (Smith v Leech Brain (1962)—burn to lip led to cancer, defendant liable for full extent). A novus actus interveniens breaks the chain; however, the defendant’s act need not be the sole cause. When multiple causes exist, the material contribution test (Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw (1956)) or material increase in risk test (McGhee v National Coal Board (1973), confirmed in Fairchild (2002) for industrial diseases) can be applied.
法律因果关系要求损害是那种可以合理预见的类型。这是来自 The Wagon Mound (No 1) (1961) 案的损害的遥远性测试。如果损害类型不可预见，它就过于遥远。“薄头骨”规则在此同样适用（Smith v Leech Brain (1962) 案——嘴唇烧伤导致癌症，被告对全部后果负责）。新介入行为会打断因果链条；然而，被告的行为不必是唯一原因。当存在多个原因时，可适用实质性促成测试（Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw (1956)）或风险实质性增加测试（McGhee v National Coal Board (1973)，由 Fairchild (2002) 案在职业病中确认）。
6. Elements of Murder and Voluntary Manslaughter | 谋杀与故意杀人罪的要素
The definition of murder is a classic legal formula from Sir Edward Coke: ‘the unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being and under the King’s peace with malice aforethought, express or implied.’ Express malice is the intention to kill; implied malice is the intention to cause grievous bodily harm (GBH) (R v Vickers (1957)). This makes murder a specific intent crime. The defendant must have the mens rea at the time of the act (coincidence principle, R v Thabo Meli (1954)).
谋杀的定义是一个经典的法律公式，源自 Sir Edward Coke 爵士：“在国土领域内，非法杀害一个有理性的人，且具有明示或暗示的恶意预谋。”明示恶意是杀人意图；暗示恶意是造成严重身体伤害的意图（R v Vickers (1957) 案）。这使得谋杀成为特定意图犯罪。被告必须在行为时具有犯罪意图（同时性原则，R v Thabo Meli (1954) 案）。
If murder’s actus reus and mens rea are established, the defendant can lower a murder conviction to voluntary manslaughter by establishing a special partial defence. The two most critical ‘formulas’ are Diminished Responsibility and Loss of Control.
如果谋杀的行为要件和心理要件均已确立，被告可通过成立一项特殊的局部辩护，将谋杀定罪降低为故意杀人罪。最重要的两个“公式”是减轻责任和失去控制。
- Diminished Responsibility (s.2 Homicide Act 1957, amended by s.52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009): Four elements must be proven on balance of probabilities:
- An abnormality of mental functioning arising from a recognised medical condition.
- The abnormality must provide an explanation for the killing.
- It must substantially impair the defendant’s ability to (a) understand the nature of their conduct, or (b) form a rational judgement, or (c) exercise self-control.
- 减轻责任（1957 年《杀人法》第 2 条，经 2009 年《死因裁判官与司法法》第 52 条修订）：必须基于概率权衡证明四个要素：
- 源于经认可的医疗状况的心理功能异常。
- 该异常必须能为杀人行为提供解释。
- 它必须实质性损害了被告以下能力：(a) 理解自身行为的性质，或 (b) 形成理性判断，或 (c) 行使自我控制。
- Loss of Control (s.54-55 Coroners and Justice Act 2009): A three-stage test:
- The defendant must lose self-control (subjective).
- The loss of control must be caused by a qualifying trigger: (a) fear of serious violence from the victim, or (b) things said/done which constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character and caused the defendant a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged. Sexual infidelity alone is excluded as a trigger.
- A person of the defendant’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint, in the same circumstances, might have reacted in the same or similar way (objective).
- 失去控制（2009 年《死因裁判官与司法法》第 54-55 条）：一个三阶段测试：
- 被告必须失去自我控制（主观）。
- 失去控制必须由一个合格触发因素引起：(a) 对来自受害人的严重暴力的恐惧，或 (b) 所说/所做之事，该情况性质极其严重，并使被告产生了受到严重错待的合理感觉。仅性不忠被排除在触发因素之外。
- 一个与被告同性别和年龄、具有正常程度的容忍与自制的正常人，在相同情况下，可能会以相同或相似方式反应（客观）。
7. Theft Act 1968: Key Property Offence Formulae | 1968 年《盗窃法》：关键财产犯罪公式
Property offences under the Theft Act 1968 require precise element memorization. Theft (s.1) is the ‘dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it.’ This breaks down into the actus reus: (1) appropriation (s.3, any assumption of rights of owner, R v Morris (1984)), (2) property (s.4, money, real, personal, things in action, intangibles), (3) belonging to another (s.5, possession or control). The mens rea is (1) dishonesty (s.2, partial definition; the common law test is from Ivey v Genting Casinos (2017): (a) what was the defendant’s actual knowledge or belief as to the facts? (b) in that context, was the conduct dishonest by the objective standards of ordinary decent people?), and (2) intention to permanently deprive (s.6).
根据 1968 年《盗窃法》的财产犯罪要求精确记忆要素。盗窃（第 1 条）是指“意图永久剥夺他人对财产的占有，不诚实地将属于他人的财产据为己有。”这可分解为犯罪行为：(1) 据为己有（第 3 条，任何对所有者权利的行使，R v Morris (1984) 案），(2) 财产（第 4 条，货币、不动产、动产、诉讼物、无形财产），(3) 属于他人（第 5 条，占有或控制）。犯罪意图是 (1) 不诚实（第 2 条，部分定义；普通法测试来自 Ivey v Genting Casinos (2017) 案：(a) 被告对事实的实际认知或信念是什么？(b) 在此背景下，根据诚实的普通人的客观标准，该行为是否不诚实？），以及 (2) 永久剥夺的意图（第 6 条）。
Robbery (s.8): The formula is theft + force or putting/seeking to put the victim in fear of immediately being subjected to force, and the force must be used immediately before or at the time of stealing, and for the purpose of stealing. The mens rea for theft must be complete; if the force precedes the completed theft, it is robbery.
抢劫（第 8 条）：其公式为盗窃 + 武力或使/试图使受害人恐惧将立即遭受武力，并且该武力必须是在盗窃之时或即将盗窃之前使用，并以偷窃为目的。盗窃的犯罪意图必须完整；如果武力发生在盗窃完成之前，即为抢劫。
8. The Nature of Law: Core Theoretical Formulae | 法律的本质：核心理论公式
In your Nature of Law section, you must master the ‘transformational’ or linking formulae that connect law to morality and justice. Natural Law, as theorised by St Thomas Aquinas, posits that a law is only valid if it stems from divine reason and promotes the common good. A law that contravenes natural law is ‘no law at all’ (lex iniusta non est lex). Lon Fuller provided a procedural ‘internal morality of law’ formula consisting of eight desiderata. A legal system fails if rules are: (1) not general, (2) not promulgated, (3) retroactive, (4) unintelligible, (5) contradictory, (6) impossible to follow, (7) too frequently changed, (8) not administered as announced.
在法律本质部分，你必须掌握连接法律与道德和正义的“转换”或链接公式。由圣托马斯·阿奎那理论化的自然法主张，一项法律仅当其源于神圣理性并促进共同善时方为有效。违背自然法的法律“根本不是法律”（lex iniusta non est lex）。朗·富勒提供了一个程序性的“法律内在道德”公式，包含八项要求。如果一个法律体系的规则存在以下问题，即为失败：(1) 非普遍性，(2) 未公布，(3) 溯及既往，(4) 难以理解，(5) 自相矛盾，(6) 无法遵从，(7) 变动过于频繁，(8) 与执行不一致。
Legal Positivism, in contrast, as developed by H.L.A. Hart, separates law from morality. Hart’s system is built on a ‘union of primary and secondary rules’, with the ‘ultimate rule of recognition’ as the master formula that validates all other rules within a legal system. This rule of recognition is a social fact observed in the practices of legal officials. Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism, an ethical formula, judges law by its ability to produce ‘the greatest happiness of the greatest number,’ a hedonistic calculus that weighs the pleasure and pain of a law’s consequences.
与之相对，如 H.L.A. 哈特所发展的法律实证主义则将法律与道德分离。哈特的体系建立在“初级规则与次级规则的结合”之上，而“最终的承认规则”作为总公式，验证法律体系内所有其他规则的有效性。这个承认规则是在法律官员的实践中观察到的一种社会事实。杰里米·边沁的功利主义是一种伦理公式，它根据法律能否产生“最大多数人的最大幸福”来评判法律，这是一种计算法律后果的快乐与痛苦的享乐主义演算。
9. Judicial Review: The Illegality Formula | 司法审查：违法性公式
Judicial review ensures that public bodies act lawfully. The grounds, formulated by Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (GCHQ) (1985), are illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety. The formula for illegality requires that a decision-maker must correctly understand and apply the law that regulates their decision-making power. They must not exceed their powers by acting ultra vires.
司法审查确保公共机构依法行事。由迪普洛克勋爵在 Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (GCHQ) (1985) 案中阐述的理由是违法性、非理性和程序不当。违法性的公式要求决策者必须正确理解并适用规范其决策权力的法律。他们不得通过超越权限（ultra vires）行事来超越其权力。
Within illegality, specific sub-rules act as mini-formulae:
- Improper purpose: Power granted for one purpose cannot be used for another (Attorney General v Fulham Corporation (1921)).
- Relevant/Irrelevant considerations: Must consider what the statute requires, and ignore what it does not (Roberts v Hopwood (1925)).
- Fettering discretion: A public body must not rigidly apply a policy so as to refuse to hear individual cases (British Oxygen v Minister of Technology (1971)).
在违法性内部，具体的子规则充当小型公式：
- 不当目的：为某一目的授予的权力不得用于另一目的（Attorney General v Fulham Corporation (1921) 案）。
- 相关/不相关考虑：必须考虑法规要求考虑的因素，并忽略其不要求考虑的因素（Roberts v Hopwood (1925) 案）。
- 束缚裁量权：公共机构不得僵化地适用政策以致于拒绝审理个案（British Oxygen v Minister of Technology (1971) 案）。
10. Judicial Review: Irrationality and Proportionality | 司法审查：非理性与比例原则
Irrationality, or Wednesbury unreasonableness (Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation (1948)), is a decision ‘so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question could have arrived at it.’ This is a high threshold. The formula is essentially: Decision ∉ Set of Reasonable Decisions ∈ Any Sensible Person. A decision is not irrational merely because a court disagrees with it; it must be absurd.
非理性，或称 Wednesbury 不合理性（Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 案），指的是一项决定“在逻辑上或公认的道德标准上如此公然违背，以致于任何一个用心思考该问题的明智之人都不会得出此结论。”这是一个很高的门槛。该公式本质上是：决策 ∉ 理性决策集 ∈ 任何明智之人。一项决定不会仅仅因为法院不同意它而成为非理性的；它必须是荒谬的。
Proportionality is a more modern ground, required for cases engaging human rights under the Human Rights Act 1998. The formula, adapted from R (Daly) v Home Secretary (2001) and Bank Mellat (2014), is a four-stage test: (1) is the objective sufficiently important to justify limiting a fundamental right? (2) is the measure rationally connected to the objective? (3) is a less intrusive measure available? (4) has a fair balance been struck between the rights of the individual and the interests of the community? If the answer to any is no, the decision is disproportionate and therefore unlawful.
比例原则是一个更现代的审查理由，为处理涉及《1998 年人权法》下的人权案件所必需。该公式改编自 R (Daly) v Home Secretary (2001) 和 Bank Mellat (2014) 案，是一个四阶段测试：(1) 目标是否足够重要，足以证明限制一项基本权利是正当的？ (2) 该措施与目标是否具有合理联系？ (3) 是否存在侵入性更小的替代措施？ (4) 个人权利与社群利益之间是否达到了公正的平衡？如果任何一个答案为否，该决定就是不成比例的，因而违法。
11. Human Rights Act 1998: The Interference Formula | 1998 年《人权法》：干预公式
When a Convention right (e.g., Article 8—private life, or Article 10—expression) is interfered with, the court applies a structured formula to assess legality. For qualified rights, the interference must be: (1) prescribed by law (Sunday Times v UK (1979)—accessible and foreseeable), (2) in pursuit of a legitimate aim (as listed in the Article’s second paragraph), and (3) necessary in a democratic society, which imports the proportionality test and the requirement for ‘pressing social need’.
当一项公约权利（如第 8 条——私人生活，或第 10 条——表达自由）受到干预时，法院会应用一个结构化的公式来评估其合法性。对于有限制的权利，干预必须是：(1) 依法规定（Sunday Times v UK (1979) 案——可获取且可预见），(2) 追求一项合法目的（如条款第二段所列），以及 (3) 为民主社会所必需，这引入了比例原则测试和“紧迫的社会需求”的要求。
Section 3(1) requires primary and subordinate legislation to be ‘read and given effect in a way which is compatible with Convention rights, so far as it is possible to do so.’ If a compatible interpretation is impossible, the higher courts can issue a declaration of incompatibility under s.4. This does not invalidate the Act but signals to Parliament that the law should be changed. Section 6 makes it unlawful for a public authority to act in a way incompatible with a Convention right, unless the incompatible action is required by primary legislation.
第 3(1) 条要求“在尽可能的范围内”，以与公约权利相容的方式解释并赋予初级和次级立法效力。如果不可能进行相容解释，高级别法院可以根据第 4 条发出不相容宣告。这不会使该法令无效，而是向议会发出信号表明法律应被修改。第 6 条规定，公共机构以不符合公约权利的方式行事即属违法，除非该不相容行为是初级立法所要求的。
12. Defences in Tort: Consent and Contributory Negligence | 侵权抗辩：同意与共同过失
A defendant may avoid or reduce liability by establishing a full or partial defence. Volenti non fit injuria (consent) is a complete defence. The formula requires that the claimant: (1) had full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk, (2) voluntarily agreed to accept the risk, both physically and legally. This was demonstrated in Morris v Murray (1991) where the claimant agreed to a drunken flight, but is tough to prove. Consent cannot be implied from rescuer situations (Baker v TE Hopkins (1959)), nor can it be a defence to an action by a passenger against a driver due to s.149 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
被告可通过确立一项完全或局部抗辩来避免或减轻责任。Volenti non fit injuria（同意）是一项完全抗辩。该公式要求原告：(1) 完全了解风险的性质和程度，(2) 自愿同意接受该风险，包括事实上和法律上的同意。这在 Morris v Murray (1991) 案中得到证明，原告同意乘坐醉酒驾驶的飞机，但该抗辩难以证明。不能因救援者情境而推定同意
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