📚 A-Level AQA Law: Key Vocabulary and Terminology Quick Memorisation Guide | A-Level AQA 法律：词汇术语速记指南
Memorising legal terminology is essential for success in A-Level AQA Law. This guide breaks down the most important terms from criminal law and tort law, with clear definitions, key cases, and direct Chinese translations to help you quickly recall what each concept means and how it is applied. Use this as your daily revision companion to strengthen your command of legal language.
记忆法律术语是 A-Level AQA 法律考试成功的关键。本指南梳理了刑法和侵权法中最核心的词汇，提供清晰的定义、关键案例和中文对照，帮助你快速掌握每个概念的含义及其应用。将此作为每日复习伴侣，增强你的法律语言运用能力。
1. Core Criminal Law Terms: Actus Reus and Mens Rea | 刑法核心术语：犯罪行为与犯罪意图
Actus reus refers to the external element of a crime. It can be an act, an omission in breach of a legal duty, or a state of affairs. In R v Pittwood (1902), a signalman’s failure to close a gate was an omission satisfying actus reus because of his contractual duty.
Actus reus 指犯罪的外部行为要素。它可以是作为、违反法定义务的不作为，或一种状态。在 R v Pittwood (1902) 案中，扳道工未关上闸门，因其合同义务而构成不作为，满足犯罪行为要件。
Mens rea is the mental element: the guilty mind. Direct intent means it is the defendant’s aim or purpose to bring about the prohibited consequence. Oblique intent applies where the consequence is a virtually certain result of the defendant’s actions and the defendant foresees it as virtually certain (R v Woollin 1999).
Mens rea 是主观犯罪意图：即犯意。直接故意是指被告的目的就是实现被禁止的结果。间接故意适用于结果几乎是被告行为必然后果且被告预见其几乎必然发生的情形（R v Woollin 1999）。
Subjective recklessness means the defendant foresees a risk of the prohibited outcome and unreasonably takes that risk (R v Cunningham 1957). Transferred malice allows mens rea directed at one victim to be transferred to another when the actus reus hits a different target (R v Latimer 1886).
主观轻率是指被告预见到禁止结果的风险却不合理地冒该风险（R v Cunningham 1957）。转移犯意允许将针对某一受害人的犯意转移给实际受害者，当犯罪行为击中了不同对象时适用（R v Latimer 1886）。
The general principle of coincidence requires that actus reus and mens rea occur at the same time. A continuing act (Fagan v MPC 1969) or a series of acts (Thabo Meli v R 1954) can satisfy this.
同步性原则要求犯罪行为和犯罪意图必须同时发生。持续性动作（Fagan v MPC 1969）或一系列行为（Thabo Meli v R 1954）可以满足这一要求。
2. Causation: Factual and Legal Cause | 因果关系：事实原因与法律原因
Factual causation is determined by the ‘but for’ test: but for the defendant’s conduct, would the consequence have occurred? R v White (1910) illustrates this; the son’s act of putting cyanide in his mother’s drink was not the factual cause of her death because she died of a heart attack before the poison could take effect.
事实因果关系由’若非’测试决定：若非被告的行为，后果是否会发生？R v White (1910) 说明这一点；儿子在母亲饮料中下毒的行为并非死亡的事实原因，因为她在毒药起作用前已死于心脏病发作。
Legal causation requires that the defendant’s act was the operating and substantial cause of the result, more than a minimal cause (R v Smith 1959). The chain of causation can be broken by a novus actus interveniens – an intervening act that is sufficiently independent.
法律因果关系要求被告的行为是导致结果的主要且实质性原因，而非仅仅是微不足道的原因（R v Smith 1959）。因果关系链可因新介入行为 (novus actus interveniens) 而中断，该介入行为必须足够独立。
A thin skull rule means the defendant must take the victim as they find them. In R v Blaue (1975), the victim’s refusal of a blood transfusion for religious reasons did not break the chain of causation for the wounds inflicted by the defendant.
薄颅骨规则意味着被告必须接受受害者原有的特殊体质。在 R v Blaue (1975) 案中，受害者因宗教原因拒绝输血并未中断被告所造成的刺伤与死亡之间的因果关系。
Only medical treatment that is grossly negligent and overwhelming can break the chain (R v Cheshire 1991). Acts of the victim that are foreseeable will not break the chain (R v Roberts 1971).
只有严重疏忽且起到压倒性作用的医疗处置才能中断因果关系链（R v Cheshire 1991）。可预见的受害人行为不会中断因果关系链（R v Roberts 1971）。
3. Strict Liability Offences | 严格责任犯罪
Strict liability offences require no proof of mens rea for at least one element of the actus reus. A defendant can be convicted even if they took all reasonable care. Examples include driving offences, food safety regulations, and the offence of selling alcohol to a person under 18.
严格责任犯罪不要求对犯罪行为的至少一个要素证明犯罪意图。即使被告已尽到所有合理注意义务仍可被定罪。例子包括交通违规、食品安全规定以及向未满18岁者售酒等犯罪。
In Harrow LBC v Shah (1999), a shop owner was convicted of selling a lottery ticket to a minor even though staff had been instructed not to do so, demonstrating that a due diligence defence was not available. The law presumes mens rea is required unless the statute is regulatory or focuses on matters of social concern.
在 Harrow LBC v Shah (1999) 案中，店主因向未成年人出售彩票被定罪，即便已指示员工不得如此，这表明尽职抗辩并不普遍适用。法律推定要求犯意，除非法规本身是监管性质或涉及社会关切事项。
Some statutes provide a defence of due diligence, e.g., under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. The main justifications for strict liability are the protection of the public, promotion of higher standards, and ease of proof.
部分制定法规定了尽职抗辩，例如《1968年商品说明法》。严格责任的主要正当理由是保护公众、促进更高标准以及便于举证。
4. Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person | 非致命人身侵害罪
Assault is any act that causes the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence. Words alone can amount to an assault, and silence can too (R v Ireland 1997). No physical contact is needed.
Assault（威吓）指任何使受害者担心即将遭受即时的非法暴力的行为。仅凭言语即可构成，沉默亦然（R v Ireland 1997）。不需要实际身体接触。
Battery is the actual infliction of unlawful force on another person. Even the slightest touching without consent suffices (Collins v Wilcock 1984). Force includes any contact that goes beyond the ordinary jostling of everyday life.
Battery（殴击）是向他人实际施加非法暴力。哪怕是最轻微的未经同意的触碰也足够（Collins v Wilcock 1984）。暴力包括超出日常生活中普通碰擦的任何接触。
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) under s.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 requires an assault or battery that causes ‘any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort’ of the victim (R v Miller 1954). The mens rea is the same as for assault or battery, not for the injury itself (R v Savage; DPP v Parmenter 1992).
根据《1861年人身侵害罪法》第47条，造成实际身体伤害 (ABH) 的威吓/殴击，要求威吓或殴击行为导致’任何意图妨害健康或舒适的伤害’（R v Miller 1954）。犯意与威吓或殴击的犯意相同，而非针对伤害本身（R v Savage; DPP v Parmenter 1992）。
Malicious wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm (GBH) under s.20: a wound is a break in the continuity of the skin, and GBH means really serious harm (DPP v Smith 1961). The mens rea is intention or subjective recklessness as to some harm (R v Mowatt 1968). S.18 GBH with intent carries a maximum life sentence and demands specific intent to cause GBH or to resist lawful arrest.
第20条恶意伤人/造成严重身体伤害 (GBH)：伤害指皮肤连续性的破裂，GBH 指’真正严重的伤害’（DPP v Smith 1961）。犯意为意图或主观轻率地造成某种伤害（R v Mowatt 1968）。第18条故意造成GBH可判处终身监禁，要求具有造成GBH的特定故意或为抗拒合法逮捕的故意。
5. Homicide: Murder and Voluntary Manslaughter | 杀人罪：谋杀与自愿过失杀人
Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the King’s Peace with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought means an intention to kill or an intention to cause grievous bodily harm (R v Vickers 1957). The mandatory sentence is life imprisonment.
谋杀指在国王治下非法杀害一个有理智的存活者，并具有恶意预谋。恶意预谋指意图杀人或意图造成严重身体伤害（R v Vickers 1957）。法定刑罚为终身监禁。
Voluntary manslaughter arises when a partial defence reduces what would otherwise be murder to manslaughter. The two main defences are diminished responsibility and loss of control.
自愿过失杀人指当部分抗辩将本来构成谋杀的行为减轻为过失杀人。两个主要抗辩是减轻责任和丧失控制。
Diminished responsibility (s.2 Homicide Act 1957, as amended) requires an abnormality of mental functioning arising from a recognised medical condition that substantially impairs the defendant’s ability to understand their conduct, form rational judgment, or exercise self-control, and provides an explanation for the killing. (R v Byrne 1960, R v Ahluwalia 1992).
减轻责任（经
Published by TutorHao | A-Level 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