📚 A-Level OCR Law: Quick Vocabulary Memorisation Guide | A-Level OCR 法律：词汇术语速记指南
Mastering legal terminology is the key to unlocking high marks in A-Level OCR Law. This guide categorises essential vocabulary across the syllabus, providing clear English definitions paired with Chinese explanations and memory shortcuts. From sources of law to criminal defences and human rights, every term is broken down to help you learn faster and retain longer.
掌握法律术语是取得A-Level OCR法律高分的钥匙。本指南按考纲分类核心词汇，搭配英文定义与中文解析，并提供速记诀窍。从法律渊源到刑事抗辩与人权法，每个术语都被拆解透彻，助你学得更快、记得更牢。
1. Sources of Law Terminology | 法律渊源术语速记
“Statute law” refers to primary legislation enacted by Parliament, also known as Acts of Parliament. These laws override all other domestic sources due to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty.
“制定法” 指由议会颁布的主要立法，又称议会法案。基于议会主权原则，制定法的效力高于所有其他国内法律渊源。
“Common law” is judge-made law developed through the binding decisions of courts. It follows the doctrine of precedent (stare decisis), meaning lower courts must follow the rulings of higher courts in similar cases.
“普通法” 是由法院的有约束力判决发展出的法官造法。它遵循先例原则 (stare decisis)，即下级法院须在类似案件中遵从上级法院的裁决。
“Delegated legislation” is law made by individuals or bodies to whom Parliament has delegated authority, such as statutory instruments, by-laws, and Orders in Council. It allows detailed rules to be created by experts without taking up parliamentary time.
“授权立法” 是由议会授予权力的个人或机构制定的法律，如行政规章、地方条例和枢密院令。它让专家在无需占用议会时间的情况下制定详细规则。
Memory hack: Remember S-C-D (Statute, Common law, Delegated) as the three legs of the legal system stool.
速记窍门： 记住 S-C-D (制定法-普通法-授权立法) 如同支撑法律体系的三条凳腿。
2. Judicial System & Precedent | 司法体系与先例术语
“Hierarchy of courts” describes the structure from the Supreme Court at the apex, through the Court of Appeal, High Court, Crown and Magistrates’ Courts. A higher court’s decision binds lower courts.
“法院等级” 描述从顶端的最高法院，到上诉法院、高等法院、刑事法院和治安法院的结构。上级法院的判决约束下级法院。
“Ratio decidendi” (Latin for “the reason for deciding”) is the binding legal principle derived from a judgment. It is the part that must be followed in future similar cases.
“Ratio decidendi” (拉丁语意为”判决依据”) 是从判决中提炼出的有约束力法律原则，在以后类似案件中必须遵循。
“Obiter dicta” (Latin for “things said by the way”) are remarks made by a judge that are not essential to the decision. They are persuasive but not binding. Famous obiter dicta, like Lord Atkin’s neighbour principle in Donoghue v Stevenson, can heavily influence later law.
“Obiter dicta” (拉丁语意为”附带意见”) 是法官作出的非判决必要意见，具有说服力但并无约束力。著名的附带意见，如Atkin勋爵在Donoghue v Stevenson案中的邻人原则，可深远影响后世法律。
The doctrine of “stare decisis” (stand by things decided) ensures consistency and predictability in the common law system. The Supreme Court is bound by its own decisions unless using the 1966 Practice Statement to depart.
“遵循先例” 原则 (stare decisis) 保障了普通法体系的一致性与可预测性。最高法院受自身判决约束，除非依循1966年实践声明予以偏离。
3. Criminal Law Core Terminology | 刑法核心术语速记
“Actus reus” refers to the guilty act or omission that forms the physical element of a crime. It can be a positive act, a failure to act where there is a duty, or a state of affairs (e.g. being drunk in charge of a vehicle).
“Actus reus” (犯罪行为) 指构成犯罪客观要素的有罪行为或不作为。可以是积极行为、有义务时的消极不作为，或特定状态 (如醉酒控制车辆)。
“Mens rea” is the mental element, the guilty mind. Common types include intention (direct or oblique), recklessness (Cunningham recklessness – subjective awareness of the risk), and sometimes gross negligence or knowledge.
“Mens rea” (犯罪意图) 是主观要素，即犯意。常见类型包括故意 (直接或间接故意)、轻率 (Cunningham轻率，即主观意识到风险)，有时还包括重大过失或明知。
“Strict liability” offences require proof of actus reus only; no mens rea is needed for at least part of the offence. These are often regulatory crimes such as selling alcohol to minors, where the aim is public protection (e.g. Callow v Tillstone).
“严格责任” 犯罪只需证明犯罪行为，无需证明犯罪意图（至少对犯罪的部分要素）。多为监管类罪行，如向未成年人售酒，目的在保护公众 (如 Case Callow v Tillstone)。
“Causation” links the defendant’s act to the result. Factual causation uses the “but for” test (R v White). Legal causation requires that the defendant’s act was the substantial and operating cause (R v Smith), with no intervening act breaking the chain (novus actus interveniens).
“因果关系” 将被告行为与结果关联。事实因果关系采用”若无则不”检验 (R v White)。法律因果关系要求被告的行为是实质性、有效动因 (R v Smith)，且无介入行为中断链条 (novus actus interveniens)。
4. Defences in Criminal Law | 刑法抗辩术语
“Duress” is a defence where the defendant committed a crime because of a threat of death or serious injury. It cannot be used for murder or attempted murder. The threat must be immediate and the response proportionate (R v Hasan).
“胁迫” 是一种抗辩，被告因受到死亡或严重伤害的威胁而实施犯罪。不能用于谋杀或谋杀未遂。威胁须紧迫且回应成比例 (R v Hasan)。
“Intoxication” can be voluntary or involuntary. Voluntary intoxication is a defence only for crimes of specific intent (e.g. murder, theft) where it may negate mens rea. For basic intent crimes, voluntary intoxication is no defence (DPP v Majewski). Involuntary intoxication may provide a defence to any crime.
“醉酒” 分为自愿与非自愿。自愿醉酒仅对特定故意犯罪 (如谋杀、盗窃) 构成抗辩，可能否定犯罪意图。对基本故意犯罪，自愿醉酒不成立抗辩 (DPP v Majewski)。非自愿醉酒可对任何犯罪成立抗辩。
“Self-defence” allows the use of reasonable force to protect oneself, another, or property. It is governed by common law and s76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. The force must be necessary and proportionate as the defendant honestly believes it to be (R v Gladstone Williams).
“自我防卫” 允许使用合理武力保护自己、他人或财产。由普通法及2008年刑事司法与移民法第76条规管。武力须必要且与被告真诚相信的情况成比例 (R v Gladstone Williams)。
5. Tort of Negligence Terminology | 侵权法之过失术语
“Duty of care” establishes whether a defendant owes a legal obligation to the claimant. The modern test comes from Caparo Industries v Dickman: foreseeability of damage, proximity, and whether imposing a duty is fair, just and reasonable.
“注意义务” 确定被告是否对原告负有法律义务。现代检验标准来自Caparo Industries v Dickman案：损害可预见性、近邻关系，以及施加义务是否公平、公正与合理。
“Breach of duty” occurs when the defendant falls below the standard of the reasonable person. The court evaluates the risk factors: likelihood of harm (Bolton v Stone), seriousness of harm (Paris v Stepney Borough Council), cost of precautions (Latimer v AEC), and social utility of the activity.
“义务违反” 指被告未达到合理人标准。法院考量风险因素：损害发生可能性 (Bolton v Stone)、损害的严重性 (Paris v Stepney Borough Council)、预防措施成本 (Latimer v AEC) 及活动的社会效用。
“Causation and remoteness” in negligence: the “but for” test for factual cause (Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital), and the damage must not be too remote – the kind of damage must be reasonably foreseeable (The Wagon Mound). An egg-shell skull rule applies for extent of harm (Smith v Leech Brain).
“过失之中的因果关系与遥远性”：事实原因用”若无则不”检验 (Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital)，且损害不得过于遥远——损害类型须可合理预见 (The Wagon Mound)。损害程度方面适用蛋壳脑袋规则 (Smith v Leech Brain)。
A useful acronym for negligence is DBCD: Duty, Breach, Causation, Damage. Visualise a broken window: first you must owe a duty to the owner, then you break it (breach), your stone causes the crack (causation), and the window is smashed (damage).
过失的简便首字母缩略词为 DBCD：义务、违反、因果、损害。想象一扇碎窗：你必须对屋主负有义务，然后你打碎它（违反），你的石头造成裂缝（因果），最终窗户碎裂（损害）。
6. Contract Law Essentials | 合同法基础术语
“Offer” is an expression of willingness to contract on certain terms, made with the intention that it shall become binding upon acceptance. Contrast with an “invitation to treat” (Fisher v Bell, Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots).
“要约” 是一种表明愿意按特定条款订约的意思表示，意图是一经承诺即受约束。区别于”要约邀请” (Fisher v Bell, Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots)。
“Acceptance” must be a mirror image of the offer, communicated to the offeror (Entores v Miles Far East). The postal rule (Adams v Lindsell) says acceptance by post takes effect on posting, not receipt.
“承诺” 必须与要约完全一致，并传达给要约人 (Entores v Miles Far East)。投邮规则 (Adams v Lindsell) 规定邮寄承诺在投递时生效，而非收到时。
“Consideration” is the price paid for the promise – something of value given by the promisee to the promisor. It must be sufficient but need not be adequate (Thomas v Thomas), and must move from the promisee. Past consideration is not good consideration (Re McArdle).
“约因” 是为允诺付出的代价——受允诺人向允诺人提供的某种价值。约因必须充分但不求等价 (Thomas v Thomas)，且须由受允诺人提供。过去约因不是有效的约因 (Re McArdle)。
“Intention to create legal relations” distinguishes social/domestic agreements from commercial ones. In commercial contexts, there is a strong presumption of intention (Edwards v Skyways). In social settings, there is a presumption against (Balfour v Balfour), rebuttable by evidence.
“建立法律关系的意图” 区分社交/家庭协议与商业协议。商业背景下强烈推定存在意图 (Edwards v Skyways)。社交场合则推定无此意图 (Balfour v Balfour)，但可被证据推翻。
7. Human Rights Vocabulary | 人权法术语
The “Human Rights Act 1998” (HRA 1998) incorporated most articles of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law. Courts must read legislation compatibly with Convention rights “so far as it is possible to do so” (section 3).
“1998年人权法” (HRA 1998) 将《欧洲人权公约》(ECHR) 的多数条款纳入英国法。法院须”在尽可能的范围内”将立法解读为与公约权利一致 (第3条)。
“Section 4 declaration of incompatibility” is issued if primary legislation cannot be read compatibly. It does not invalidate the Act but signals to Parliament that amendment is needed, creating political pressure for change.
“第4条不相容宣告” 在首要立法无法被相容解读时发出。宣告不使该法失效，而是向议会表明需要修正，由此产生变革的政治压力。
“Absolute rights” (e.g. Article 3 prohibition of torture) cannot be interfered with under any circumstances. “Qualified rights” (e.g. Article 8 respect for private life, Article 10 freedom of expression) may be restricted where prescribed by law, necessary in a democratic society, and proportionate.
“绝对权利” (如第3条禁止酷刑) 在任何情况下不得干涉。”有限制权利” (如第8条私生活尊重、第10条言论自由) 可在法律规定、为民主社会所必需且合比例时加以限制。
The “margin of appreciation” is the degree of discretion allowed to a state in interpreting and applying Convention rights. It is broader on moral issues where there is no European consensus, such as assisted suicide (Pretty v UK).
“评判余地” 是允许缔约国在解释和适用公约权利时享有的裁量空间。在缺乏欧洲共识的道德问题上该余地更宽，如协助自杀案 (Pretty v UK)。
8. Latin Maxims & Key Case Names | 拉丁法谚与典型判例速记
“Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” translates to “an act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty.” This embodies the general principle that both actus reus and mens rea are required for criminal liability.
“Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” 译为”无犯意之行为不构成犯罪”。它体现了刑事责任通常需要犯罪行为与犯罪意图并存的一般原则。
“Res ipsa loquitur” (“the thing speaks for itself”) is used in negligence when the accident would not normally occur without negligence and the defendant had control. It helps the claimant establish breach (Scott v London and St Katherine Docks).
“Res ipsa loquitur” (“事实自证”) 用于过失案件，当事故通常不会在无过失的情况下发生且被告有控制权时，可协助原告证明义务违反 (Scott v London and St Katherine Docks)。
“Volenti non fit injuria” (“to a willing person, no injury is done”) is a defence in tort whereby the claimant consented to the risk of harm. Full knowledge and voluntary acceptance are required (Smith v Charles Baker & Sons).
“Volenti non fit injuria” (“自愿者不受害”) 是侵权法中的抗辩，指原告自甘冒险。要求充分知情且自愿接受 (Smith v Charles Baker & Sons)。
“Novus actus interveniens” refers to a new intervening act that breaks the chain of causation. It can be an act of a third party, the claimant’s own act, or a natural event, provided it is sufficiently separate from the original wrong.
“Novus actus interveniens” 指中断因果关系链条的新介入行为。可以是第三方行为、原告自身行为或自然事件，只要与原不当行为足够分离。
| Latin Maxim | English Meaning | 中文要义 |
|---|---|---|
| Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea | An act does not make a person guilty without a guilty mind | 无犯意则行为不为罪 |
| Res ipsa loquitur | The thing speaks for itself | 事实自证 |
| Volenti non fit injuria | To a willing person, no injury is done | 自愿者不受害 |
| Novus actus interveniens | A new intervening act | 新介入行为 |
| Stare decisis | Stand by things decided | 遵循先例 |
9. Memory Techniques Toolkit | 速记工具箱
Create acronyms for multi-step tests: for negligence use DBCD (Duty, Breach, Causation, Damage). For the Caparo test, remember FPJ: Foreseeability, Proximity, Just and reasonable.
为多步检验创编首字母缩略词：过失用 DBCD (Duty, Breach, Causation, Damage)。Caparo检验记住 FPJ：可预见性、近邻关系、公平公正与合理。
Use the “story method” to link case names to principles. For example, imagine a snail in a ginger beer bottle (Donoghue v Stevenson) crawling into a neighbour’s garden to remind you of the neighbour principle and duty of care.
使用”故事联想法”将案例名称与原则挂钩。例如，想像一只蜗牛在姜汁啤酒瓶里 (Donoghue v Stevenson) 爬进邻家花园，以提示邻人原则与注意义务。
Group cases by outcome: cases allowing claims (e.g. McLoughlin v O’Brian, Page v Smith) versus
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