📚 AS AQA Law: Vocabulary Terminology Quick Reference Guide | AS AQA 法律：词汇术语速记指南
Building a strong legal vocabulary is the first step to success in AS AQA Law. This guide covers the essential terms you will encounter in criminal law, with clear definitions and bilingual explanations to speed up your revision. Each term is presented with a concise English definition and its matching Chinese translation, helping you master both the language and the concepts required by the exam board.
打造扎实的法律词汇基础是 AS AQA 法律迈向成功的第一步。本指南涵盖刑法中你将遇到的核心术语，提供清晰的定义和双语解释，以加速你的复习。每个术语都配有简明的英文定义和对应的中文翻译，帮助你同时掌握考试局要求的语言与概念。
1. Actus Reus and Mens Rea | 犯罪行为与犯罪意图
Actus Reus – The ‘guilty act’, the physical element of a crime. It can be an act, an omission, or a state of affairs. Tip: AR = Action Required.
犯罪行为 (Actus Reus) – “有罪的行为”，即犯罪的物理要素。它可以是一个作为、一个不作为或一种状态。速记：AR = 需要行动。
Mens Rea – The ‘guilty mind’, the mental element of a crime. Includes intention, recklessness, and sometimes knowledge or negligence. Tip: MR = Mindset Required.
犯罪意图 (Mens Rea) – “有罪的意图”，即犯罪的心理要素。包括故意、轻率，有时包括明知或过失。速记：MR = 需要心态。
Intention – A decision to bring about a prohibited consequence. Can be direct (aiming for it) or oblique (virtually certain consequence foreseen by D).
故意 (Intention) – 决定造成某一被禁止的后果。可以是直接故意（以它为目标）或间接故意（后果是被告人预见的近乎必然的结果）。
Recklessness – Taking an unjustified risk, where D foresees the risk but goes on to take it. In criminal damage, test is subjective under Cunningham.
轻率 (Recklessness) – 冒不正当的风险，即被告人预见到该风险但仍冒险行事。在刑事毁坏中，依据 Cunningham 案采用主观检验标准。
2. Strict Liability | 严格责任
Strict liability offence – An offence that does not require proof of mens rea for at least one element of the actus reus. The prosecution only needs to prove the actus reus. Common in regulatory and public safety crimes.
严格责任罪行 – 对于犯罪行为的至少一个要素无需证明犯罪意图的罪行。控方只需证明犯罪行为。常见于监管和公共安全犯罪。
Presumption of mens rea – The starting point is that all offences require mens rea unless Parliament clearly indicates otherwise. The courts look at the wording of the statute, the social danger, and the severity of the punishment.
犯罪意图推定 – 出发点是所有罪行都需要犯罪意图，除非议会明确表示相反。法院会审视法条措辞、社会危害性和刑罚的严厉程度。
Sweet v Parsley – Key case: House of Lords applied the presumption to a drug-related offence, requiring mens rea because the offence was truly criminal in nature and carried severe penalties.
Sweet v Parsley 案 – 关键案件：上议院对一项毒品相关罪行适用了此推定，要求具有犯罪意图，因为该罪行本质上是真正的刑事犯罪且处罚严厉。
3. Omissions as Actus Reus | 不作为作为犯罪行为
Omission – A failure to act. Liability can only arise if there is a legal duty to act, not merely a moral one. No general duty to rescue in English law.
不作为 (Omission) – 未采取行动。只有存在法定的作为义务时才会产生责任，而非仅出于道德义务。英国法律中不存在一般性的救助义务。
Duty to act arises from: statute (e.g. road traffic), contract (e.g. Pittwood), relationship (e.g. parent-child, Gibbins and Proctor), assumption of responsibility (e.g. Stone and Dobinson), and creation of a dangerous situation (e.g. Miller).
作为义务可产生于：制定法（如道路交通）、合同（如 Pittwood 案）、关系（如父母与子女，Gibbins and Proctor 案）、自愿承担责任（如 Stone and Dobinson 案）以及制造危险情形（如 Miller 案）。
R v Miller – D accidentally started a fire and failed to act to put it out or call for help. He was liable for arson because his earlier act created a dangerous situation.
R v Miller 案 – 被告人意外引发火灾，但未采取行动灭火或寻求帮助。他因先前的行为制造了危险情形而对纵火负责。
4. Causation: Factual and Legal | 因果关系：事实与法律
Causation – The link between D’s act and the result. Both factual and legal causation must be established.
因果关系 (Causation) – 被告人的行为与结果之间的联系。必须同时成立事实因果关系和法律因果关系。
Factual causation – The ‘but for’ test: ‘but for’ the defendant’s conduct, would the result have happened? (White). If the result would still have occurred, factual causation fails.
事实因果关系 – “若无则不”检验法：“若无”被告人的行为，该结果是否仍会发生？（White 案）。如果结果仍会发生，则事实因果关系不成立。
Legal causation – The defendant’s conduct must be a substantial and operating cause of the result. The injury need not be the only or even the main cause, just more than minimal (Kimsey).
法律因果关系 – 被告人的行为必须是结果的实质性且起作用的致因。伤害无需是唯一甚至主要的致因，只需超过微小程度即可（Kimsey 案）。
Intervening act (novus actus interveniens) – A break in the chain of causation. It must be something unforeseeable or extraordinary. Medical negligence rarely breaks the chain unless it is ‘palpably wrong’ (Cheshire). The victim’s own escape acts may break it if they are disproportionate (Roberts).
介入行为 (novus actus interveniens) – 因果关系链条的中断。它必须是不可预见或异常的事情。医疗过失很少会中断因果链条，除非属于“明显错误”（Cheshire 案）。受害人的自行逃避行为如果与其反应程度不成比例，也可能中断链条（Roberts 案）。
Thin skull rule – The defendant must take the victim as they find them. If the victim has a weakness that leads to greater harm, D is still fully liable (Blaue).
薄头骨规则 – 被告人必须接受受害人的原样。如果受害人因自身脆弱而遭受更大伤害，被告人仍需承担完全责任（Blaue 案）。
5. Transferred Malice | 转移恶意
Transferred malice – When D intends to commit a crime against one person but accidentally harms another, the mens rea can be transferred to the actual victim. The crime must be of the same type. If D throws a stone at A but hits B, the intent to injure A transfers to B (Latimer).
转移恶意 (Transferred malice) – 当被告人意图对某人犯罪，但意外伤害了另一人时，犯罪意图可以转移至实际的受害人。犯罪必须属于同一类型。如果被告人向 A 扔石头却击中 B，伤害 A 的意图转移至 B（Latimer 案）。
Limits – The transferred malice cannot cross between different types of offence elements. E.g., intent to hit a person cannot transfer to damaging property (Pembliton).
限制 – 转移恶意不能在不同类型的犯罪要素之间跨越。例如，打击人的意图不能转移为毁坏财产（Pembliton 案）。
6. Coincidence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea | 犯罪行为与犯罪意图的同步性
Coincidence rule – The actus reus and mens rea must coincide in time. Typically, the guilty mind must exist at the time of the guilty act. However, the courts use flexible approaches when the two occur in a sequence.
同步性原则 (Coincidence rule) – 犯罪行为与犯罪意图必须在时间上同时存在。通常，有罪的意图必须存在于有罪的行为发生之时。但当二者先后发生时，法院会采用灵活处理方式。
Continuing act theory – If the actus reus is a series of acts, the mens rea can be formed at any point during that series (Fagan v MPC). D parked on a policeman’s foot and refused to move it; the initial act was accidental but became criminal when he formed the intention to remain.
持续行为理论 – 如果犯罪行为是一系列行为，则犯罪意图可以在系列行为中的任何时间点形成（Fagan v MPC 案）。被告人将车停在警察脚上并拒绝移开；最初的行为是意外的，但当他形成不移动的意图时便构成犯罪。
Single transaction approach – A sequence of events can be treated as one transaction, so mens rea at one stage can cover a later actus reus if they are part of the same plan (Thabo Meli).
单一交易理论 – 一系列事件可以被视为一个交易，因此若同属一个计划，某一阶段的犯罪意图可以覆盖后续的犯罪行为（Thabo Meli 案）。
7. Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person: Assault and Battery | 人身非致命罪行：企图伤害与殴击
Assault – An act which causes the victim to apprehend immediate, unlawful personal violence. No touching is required. Words alone can be an assault, and silence can be enough if it creates fear of immediate force (Ireland; Burstow). Tip: Assault = Apprehension of Force.
企图伤害 (Assault) – 导致受害人担心即将遭受非法人身暴力的行为。无需实际触碰。仅凭言语即可构成企图伤害，甚至沉默若足以让人恐惧即将受到的暴力亦可（Ireland; Burstow 案）。速记：Assault = 恐惧暴力。
Battery – The actual infliction of unlawful personal force on another. Touching must be non-consensual and does not need to cause injury. Even a light touch can be battery (Collins v Wilcock).
殴击 (Battery) – 对他人实际施加非法人身暴力的行为。触碰必须是非同意的，且无需造成伤害。即便轻微触碰也可构成殴击（Collins v Wilcock 案）。
8. Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) | 造成实际身体伤害的企图伤害
ABH – s.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 – An assault or battery which causes actual bodily harm. The harm can be physical or psychiatric, but must be more than trivial or transient (Miller). The mens rea is the same as for assault or battery; D need not intend to cause harm.
ABH（实际身体伤害）– 1861年《人身犯罪法》第47条 – 导致实际身体伤害的企图伤害或殴击。伤害可以是身体的或精神上的，但必须超出轻微或暂时的程度（Miller 案）。犯罪意图与企图伤害或殴击相同；被告人无需意图造成伤害。
Key memory aid: ABH requires proof of a basic assault or battery plus actual bodily harm. No specific mens rea for the harm itself.
重要记忆要点： ABH 需要证明基本的企图伤害或殴击外加实际身体伤害。对于伤害本身无需特定的犯罪意图。
9. Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) and Wounding | 严重身体伤害和创伤
GBH – s.20 – Maliciously wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm. ‘Maliciously’ means intention or recklessness as to some harm, not necessarily serious harm (Savage; Parmenter). Wounding requires a break of both layers of the skin (dermis and epidermis).
GBH（第20条）– 恶意致人创伤或造成严重身体伤害。 “恶意”指对某种伤害（不一定是严重伤害）具有故意或轻率（Savage; Parmenter 案）。创伤要求皮肤表层和真皮层都被破坏。
GBH – s.18 – Wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent. This is a more serious offence requiring specific intent to cause GBH or resist arrest. It carries a maximum life sentence.
GBH（第18条）– 故意致人创伤或造成严重身体伤害。 这是更严重的罪行，要求具有造成 GBH 或抗拒逮捕的特定意图。最高可判处终身监禁。
GBH meaning: ‘Really serious harm’ (DPP v Smith). It can include severe physical injury, disease transmission, or serious psychiatric injury.
GBH 的含义： “真正严重的伤害”（DPP v Smith 案）。可包括严重身体伤害、疾病传播或严重精神伤害。
10. Property Offences: Theft, Robbery, Burglary | 财产犯罪：盗窃、抢劫、入室盗窃
Theft – s.1 Theft Act 1968 – The dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving them of it. The actus reus includes appropriation (any assumption of rights of owner), property, and belonging to another.
盗窃 – 1968年《盗窃法》第1条 – 不诚实地将属于他人的财产据为己有，并意图永久剥夺他人的财产。犯罪行为包括据为己有（对所有者权利的任何行使）、财产以及属于他人。
Mens rea of theft: Dishonesty (judged by the standards of ordinary people, subject to the Ghosh test or Ivey test) and intention to permanently deprive (includes treating property as your own regardless of the owner’s rights).
盗窃的犯罪意图： 不诚实（依普通人的标准判断，受 Ghosh 案检验标准或 Ivey 案检验标准约束）以及意图永久剥夺（包括将他人的财产视为己有而不顾其权利）。
Robbery – s.8 – Theft plus the use or threat of force immediately before or at the time of stealing, and in order to steal. Force must be used against a person or to put a person in fear of being then and there subjected to force.
抢劫 – 第8条 – 盗窃加在盗窃前夕或盗窃当时使用或威胁使用暴力，并且是为了盗窃而使用。暴力必须针对人身，或者使某人害怕当时当地受到暴力。
Burglary – s.9(1)(a) and (b) – Entering a building or part of a building as a trespasser, either with intent to steal, inflict GBH, or cause damage (s.9(1)(a)), or having entered as a trespasser, actually stealing or inflicting GBH (s.9(1)(b)).
入室盗窃 – 第9条第(1)(a)和(b)款 – 作为侵入者进入建筑物或建筑物的一部分，并带有盗窃、造成 GBH 或损坏的意图（第9条第(1)(a)款），或者作为侵入者进入后实际盗窃或造成 GBH（第9条第(1)(b)款）。
11. Key Defences: Intoxication, Self-Defence, and Consent | 主要抗辩：醉酒、自卫与同意
Intoxication – Can negate the mens rea of a specific intent offence (e.g. murder, s.18 GBH) if D was so intoxicated that they could not form the intent. However, intoxication is not a defence to basic intent offences where recklessness suffices. Voluntary and involuntary intoxication are treated differently.
醉酒 (Intoxication) – 如果被告人醉酒如此严重以致无法形成特定意图，则可以否定特定意图罪行（如谋杀、第18条 GBH）的犯罪意图。但对于以轻率即为己足的基本意图罪行，醉酒不能作为抗辩。自愿与非自愿醉酒的处理方式不同。
Self-defence – A person may use reasonable force to defend themselves, another person, or property. The force must be necessary and proportionate as judged by the defendant’s genuine, even if unreasonable, belief in the circumstances (R v Oye; Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008).
自卫 (Self-defence) – 一个人可以使用合理的武力保护自己、他人或财产。武力必须是必要的且合乎比例的，以被告人真诚相信（即使不合理）的情况来评判（R v Oye 案；2008年《刑事司法与移民法》）。
Consent – In non-fatal offences, consent may be a defence if the victim gave valid, informed consent. However, consent is not available to activities causing more than transient harm for public policy reasons, except in recognised categories (e.g. surgery, sports, tattooing). Brown held that consent is no defence to actual bodily harm in sadomasochistic activities.
同意 (Consent) – 在非致命罪行中，如果受害人给予了有效、知情的同意，同意可以作为一种抗辩。然而，出于公共政策原因，对于造成超出短暂伤害的活动，除非属于公认类别（如手术、体育、纹身），否则不能以同意作为抗辩。Brown 案判决认为，在施虐受虐活动中，同意不能作为对实际身体伤害的抗辩。
12. Legal System Vocabulary: Key Terms | 法律制度词汇：关键术语
Precedent (stare decisis) – Let the decision stand. Lower courts must follow the legal principles laid down by higher courts in earlier cases with similar material facts. The Supreme Court is not bound by its own earlier decisions but will follow them in the interests of certainty.
先例原则 (stare decisis) – 让判决成立。下级法院必须遵循上级法院在先前具有类似关键事实的案件中所确立的法律原则。最高法院不受其先前判决的约束，但为维持确定性通常会遵循。
Ratio decidendi – The legal reason for the decision. It is the binding part of a judgment. Finding the ratio is the skill of the lawyer.
判决理由 (Ratio decidendi) – 判决的法律依据。它是判决中具有约束力的部分。找出判决理由是律师的技能。
Obiter dicta – ‘Things said by the way’. Statements made by a judge that are not part of the ratio. They are persuasive only, but can be highly influential in later cases.
附带意见 (Obiter dicta) – “顺带说的话”。法官作出的不属于判决理由的陈述。它们仅具有说服力，但在后续案件中可能极具影响力。
Statutory interpretation – Rules used by judges to interpret Acts of Parliament. The literal rule (follow ordinary meaning), the golden rule (modify meaning to avoid absurdity), and the mischief rule (look at the gap in the law the statute was designed to fill).
制定法解释 (Statutory interpretation) – 法官用于解释议会法律文件的规则。字面规则（按字面普通含义）、黄金规则（为避免荒谬结果而修改含义）和除弊规则（考察该制定法旨在填补的法律漏洞）。
Burden of proof – In criminal law, the prosecution must prove the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The defendant generally bears an evidential burden for defences but the prosecution must disprove the defence once raised, unless it is a reverse onus.
举证责任 (Burden of proof) – 在刑法中，控方必须排除合理怀疑地证明被告人有罪。被告人对抗辩一般承担提供证据的责任，但一旦提出抗辩，控方必须反驳之，除非属于举证责任倒置的情形。
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