Case Analysis Practical Exercises | 案例分析实战演练

📚 Case Analysis Practical Exercises | 案例分析实战演练

Welcome to this practical case analysis workbook for KS3 Cambridge Law. In law, the ability to apply rules to real-life situations is just as important as knowing the rules themselves. Through a series of short, engaging scenarios, you will learn how to spot legal issues, identify the relevant legal principles, and reach a reasoned conclusion. Each case has been designed to introduce a key concept from criminal law, tort law, or contract law, using everyday situations that a young person might encounter. Work through them one by one, and remember to think like a lawyer: what are the facts, what is the law, and how does the law apply here?

欢迎来到这本 KS3 剑桥法律案例分析实战练习册。在法律中，将规则应用于现实情境的能力与了解规则本身同样重要。通过一系列简短、有趣的场景，你将学会发现法律问题、识别相关法律原则并得出有理由的结论。每一个案例都旨在引入刑法、侵权法或合同法中的一个关键概念，并使用年轻人可能遇到的日常情境。请一一分析，并记住要像律师一样思考：事实是什么，法律是什么，法律如何适用于本案？

---

1. Case Study 1: The Missing Cookie | 案例一：丢失的饼干

During break time, Sarah saw a chocolate cookie on a table in the classroom. No one was watching. She quietly took it and ate it. The cookie belonged to her classmate, Tom. Sarah did not ask for permission, and Tom had not said she could take it.

课间休息时，莎拉看到教室桌上有一块巧克力饼干。没有人注意。她悄悄拿起来吃了。饼干是她同学汤姆的。莎拉没有请求许可，汤姆也没有说过她可以拿。

Question: Has Sarah committed the offence of theft? Under the Theft Act 1968, theft requires the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. Sarah took the cookie (appropriation) and ate it, meaning Tom cannot get it back (intention to permanently deprive). The remaining question is dishonesty: would an ordinary, decent person consider her actions dishonest? Taking another person’s snack without permission is clearly dishonest by ordinary standards. Therefore, the actus reus (the physical act) and the mens rea (the guilty mind) are both present. Sarah is likely guilty of theft, even though the value of the cookie is small.

问题：莎拉犯了盗窃罪吗？根据《1968年盗窃法》，盗窃罪要求不诚实地侵占他人财产，并具有永久剥夺他人财产的意图。莎拉拿走了饼干（侵占行为）并且吃了它，这意味着汤姆再也拿不回来了（永久剥夺的意图）。剩下的问题是是否不诚实：一个普通正派的人会认为她的行为不诚实吗？未经许可拿走别人的零食，按照一般标准显然是不诚实的。因此，犯罪行为（物理行为）和犯罪意图（有罪的心理）都已具备。莎拉很可能犯有盗窃罪，尽管饼干的价值很小。

---

2. Case Study 2: The Broken Window | 案例二：打破的窗户

During a football game in the park, Jack kicked the ball hard. It flew over the fence and smashed the window of a nearby house. Jack did not aim at the window on purpose, but he knew houses were close to the park and that a wild kick could cause damage. The homeowner is now demanding compensation.

在公园的一场足球比赛中，杰克用力踢了一脚球。球飞过围栏，砸碎了附近一所房子的窗户。杰克并非故意瞄准窗户，但他知道公园附近有房屋，猛烈的一脚可能造成损坏。房主现在要求赔偿。

Question: Can Jack be held liable for criminal damage? Criminal damage requires that a person intentionally or recklessly destroys or damages property belonging to another. Jack did not intend to break the window, but did he act recklessly? A person acts recklessly if they foresee a risk of damage and, in the circumstances known to them, it is unreasonable to take that risk. Jack knew houses were nearby and still kicked the ball with great force without checking his aim. A court would likely find that Jack recognised the risk and went ahead anyway, making him reckless. Thus, the mens rea for criminal damage is satisfied, and Jack could be guilty of criminal damage.

问题：杰克是否可能承担刑事毁坏的罪责？刑事毁坏要求一个人故意或鲁莽地毁坏或损坏属于他人的财产。杰克没有意图打破窗户，但他的行为是否鲁莽？如果一个人预见到损害的风险，而根据他所知的情况，冒这个风险是不合理的，那么他的行为就是鲁莽的。杰克知道附近有房屋，仍然大力踢球而没有检查方向。法庭很可能认为杰克认识到了风险却仍然这样做，构成鲁莽。因此，刑事毁坏的犯罪意图得到满足，杰克可能犯有刑事毁坏罪。

---

3. Case Study 3: The Borrowed Bicycle | 案例三：借走的自行车

Mia asked her friend Emma if she could borrow Emma’s bicycle to go to the shop. Emma agreed, saying “Bring it back by 5 p.m.” Mia took the bike, but instead of returning it, she kept it overnight and used it again the next day. When Emma asked for it back, Mia made excuses. A week later, Mia still had the bicycle and had no plans to return it.

米娅问朋友艾玛，能否借她的自行车去商店。艾玛同意了，说：“5点之前还回来。”米娅骑走了车，但她没有归还，而是留了一整夜，第二天又用了。当艾玛要求归还时，米娅找各种借口。一周后，米娅仍然留着自行车，并且没有归还的打算。

Question: At what point might Mia’s borrowing become theft? Initially, Mia had permission to take the bike, so the appropriation was not dishonest. However, if she later decides to keep the bike and treat it as her own, she may be committing theft. The Theft Act 1968 states that a person can steal property even if they came by it lawfully, if they later assume the rights of an owner and keep it or deal with it as their own. By keeping the bike beyond the agreed time and ignoring Emma’s requests, Mia has shown an intention to permanently deprive Emma of it. The moment Mia decided not to return the bicycle and acted dishonestly towards Emma, she likely committed theft.

问题：米娅的借用行为在什么时候可能转变成盗窃？一开始，米娅有许可骑走自行车，因此侵占行为并非不诚实。但如果她后来决定留下自行车并当作自己的财产处置，就可能构成盗窃。《1968年盗窃法》规定，即使一个人合法取得财产，如果后来他行使所有人的权利，并保留财产或当作自己的财产处理，也可以构成盗窃。米娅在约定时间之后继续持有自行车，并且无视艾玛的要求，已经表现出永久剥夺艾玛财产的意图。当米娅决定不归还自行车并对此采取不诚实的行动时，她很可能已经犯下盗窃罪。

---

4. Case Study 4: The Playground Promise | 案例四：操场上的承诺

During lunch, Ben said to his friend Leo, “If you help me finish my maths homework, I’ll pay you £10 this Friday.” Leo agreed and spent his entire lunch break helping Ben. On Friday, Ben refused to pay, claiming it was just a joke between friends and not a real contract.

午餐时，本对他的朋友利奥说：“如果你帮我完成数学作业，这个星期五我给你10英镑。”利奥答应了，并用了整个午餐时间帮助本。到了星期五，本拒绝付钱，声称这只是朋友间的玩笑，不是真正的合同。

Question: Is there a legally binding contract between Ben and Leo? A contract requires an offer, acceptance, consideration (something of value exchanged), and an intention to create legal relations. Here, Ben made a clear offer, Leo accepted by performing the task, and consideration exists: Leo provided help, and Ben promised money. The key issue is the intention to create legal relations. In social or domestic agreements, there is a presumption that no legal relations are intended, but this can be rebutted if the circumstances suggest otherwise. Was this a commercial arrangement or a casual favour? The language “I’ll pay you £10” and the fact that it was a specific task at a set time may suggest a more business-like deal. However, between school friends, courts might still consider it a social arrangement without legal force unless Leo relied on it to his detriment. Here, Leo did act on the promise, but proving intention in a school setting is difficult. It is arguable that no contract exists, and Ben would not be legally obliged to pay.

问题：本和利奥之间存在具有法律约束力的合同吗？合同的成立需要要约、承诺、对价（交换的有价物）以及设立法律关系的意图。本案中，本提出了明确的要约，利奥通过完成任务表示承诺，对价也存在：利奥提供了帮助，本允诺了金钱。关键问题是设立法律关系的意图。在社交或家庭协议中，存在不打算设立法律关系的推定，但如果情况表明相反，这一推定可以被推翻。这里，措辞“我给你10英镑”以及这是一个特定时间内的具体任务，可能暗示更接近商业交易。然而，在学校朋友之间，法院仍可能认为这只是没有法律效力的社交安排，除非利奥对其产生依赖而遭受损失。本案中，利奥确实基于承诺行事，但在学校环境中证明意图很困难。可以说合同不成立，本没有法律义务付款。

---

5. Case Study 5: The Slippery Floor | 案例五：湿滑的地板

While shopping at a local supermarket, Mrs Patel slipped on a patch of spilled yogurt in the dairy aisle and fell heavily. She broke her wrist. The supermarket staff had noticed the spill ten minutes earlier but had not cleaned it up or put out a warning sign. Another shopper had already reported the spill to a staff member.

帕特尔夫人在本地一家超市购物时，在乳制品过道踩到一块洒落的酸奶滑倒，重重摔倒并摔断了手腕。超市员工在十分钟前已经注意到洒落物，但没有清理，也没有放置警示标志。另一位顾客早已向员工报告过洒落情况。

Question: Can Mrs Patel claim compensation for negligence? To prove negligence, a claimant must show that the defendant owed them a duty of care, breached that duty, and caused damage that was not too remote. Supermarkets owe a duty of care to their customers to keep the premises reasonably safe. By knowing about the spill and failing to clean it or warn customers within a reasonable time, the supermarket likely breached that duty. The breach directly caused Mrs Patel’s injury. The damage (broken wrist) is a foreseeable type of harm from a slip. Therefore, Mrs Patel has a strong claim in the tort of negligence, and the supermarket would be liable to pay damages for her medical costs and suffering.

问题：帕特尔夫人可以就疏忽提起赔偿吗？要证明疏忽，原告必须证明被告对其负有注意义务，违反了该义务，并造成了并非过于间接的损害。超市对其顾客负有注意义务，须保持场所的合理安全。明知有洒落物却没有在合理时间内清理或警示顾客，超市很可能违反了该义务。这一违反直接导致了帕特尔夫人的受伤。损害（手腕骨折）是滑倒可预见的一种伤害类型。因此，帕特尔夫人有很强的疏忽侵权索赔依据，超市有责任赔偿她的医疗费用和痛苦。

---

6. Case Study 6: The Loud Party | 案例六：喧闹的派对

Alex lives next door to a family with two young children. Last Saturday, Alex hosted a birthday party that lasted until 3 a.m. The music was extremely loud, with heavy bass that caused the walls to vibrate. The children could not sleep, and the parents felt exhausted and stressed. Alex has thrown similar late-night parties every weekend for the past month. The family has asked Alex politely to keep the noise down, but Alex ignored their requests.

亚历克斯住在有一对年幼孩子的家庭隔壁。上周六，亚历克斯举办了一场持续到凌晨3点的生日派对。音乐声极大，重低音让墙壁都振动了。孩子们无法入睡，父母感到筋疲力尽、压力很大。在过去的一个月里，亚历克斯每个周末都举办类似的深夜派对。该家人礼貌地请求亚历克斯降低噪音，但亚历克斯置之不理。

Question: Could the family take legal action for private nuisance? Private nuisance is an unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of their land. One-off loud noise might not be enough, but repeated excessive noise at unreasonable hours clearly interferes with ordinary living. The family’s right to quiet enjoyment of their home is being seriously affected. The fact that the noise is regular and Alex has been asked to stop strengthens the case. The court could grant an injunction ordering Alex to stop the late-night parties and could also award damages for the distress and inconvenience caused. Therefore, the family has a very good chance of succeeding in a claim for private nuisance.

问题：该家庭可以就私人妨害提起法律诉讼吗？私人妨害是对一个人使用或享有其土地的不法干扰。一次性的巨大噪音或许不够，但在不合理的时间反复发出过度噪音显然干扰了正常生活。该家庭对其住宅安宁享有权正受到严重影响。噪音具有规律性且亚历克斯已被要求停止却无视，这强化了案件。法院可以颁发禁制令，命令亚历克斯停止深夜派对，也可以就造成的痛苦和不便判给损害赔偿。因此，该家庭在私人妨害诉讼中胜诉的可能性很大。

---

7. Case Study 7: The Stolen Exam Paper | 案例七：被盗的试卷

During the end-of-term exams, Kevin noticed that the teacher’s desk was unattended. He saw a pile of exam papers and quickly took one, hiding it inside his blazer. His plan was to look at the questions and share them with his friends so they could prepare answers in advance. He never intended to return the paper.

在期末考试期间，凯文注意到老师的办公桌无人看管。他看到一叠试卷，迅速拿起一份，藏在外套里。他的计划是看题目并与朋友分享，以便提前准备答案。他从未打算归还试卷。

Question: Has Kevin committed theft? Although the exam paper itself might not have high monetary value, the Theft Act 1968 defines property broadly and includes intangible property such as a thing in action. Even if the paper is considered just paper, it belongs to the school. Kevin dishonestly appropriated it with the intention of permanently depriving the school of it (he never intended to return it). Therefore, the elements of theft are satisfied. In addition, his actions could also amount to cheating or academic dishonesty within school rules, but under criminal law, theft is the relevant offence. Kevin could be held guilty of theft.

问题：凯文犯了盗窃罪吗？尽管试卷本身可能没有很高的金钱价值，但《1968年盗窃法》对财产的定义很广，包括无形财产如诉权。即便只把试卷当作一张纸，它仍属于学校。凯文不诚实地侵占了它，并有永久剥夺学校的意图（他从未想归还）。因此，盗窃的要素都已具备。此外，他的行为在校规下还可能构成作弊或学术不诚实，但在刑法上，盗窃是相关的犯罪。凯文可能被判盗窃罪。

---

8. Case Study 8: The Dog Bite | 案例八：狗咬伤人

While walking in the park, a 10-year-old boy, Harry, was bitten on the leg by a dog that had escaped from its owner’s garden. The owner, Mr Brown, had left the garden gate open by mistake. The dog had never shown any aggressive behaviour before and was usually friendly. Mr Brown had no reason to believe his dog would bite anyone.

在公园散步时，10岁男孩哈利被一只从主人家花园逃出来的狗咬伤了腿。主人布朗先生不小心没关好花园门。这只狗以前从未表现出任何攻击行为，通常很友好。布朗先生没有任何理由相信他的狗会咬人。

Question: Is Mr Brown liable for the injury, even though he did not know his dog was dangerous? Under the Animals Act 1971, the keeper of an animal which belongs to a dangerous species is strictly liable for any damage it causes. For dogs (not a dangerous species), liability for injury arises only if the keeper knows or has reason to know that the animal had vicious or dangerous tendencies. Since the dog had no history of aggression, Mr Brown may not be liable under the Act for the bite. However, Mr Brown could still be liable in the tort of negligence if he failed to take reasonable care to prevent the dog from escaping. Leaving the gate open might be considered careless, and it was foreseeable that a loose dog could cause harm, but the bite itself was unforeseeable. The outcome is uncertain, but strict liability probably does not apply here; a claim in negligence would depend on whether the escape was a breach of duty of care.

问题：布朗先生对伤害负有责任吗，即使他不知道他的狗是危险的？根据《1971年动物法》，危险物种的动物饲养者对动物造成的任何损害承担严格责任。对于狗（非危险物种），只有饲养者知道或有理由知道该动物有恶毒或危险倾向时，才对造成的损害承担责任。由于这只狗没有攻击历史，布朗先生可能不根据该法对咬伤负责。然而，布朗先生仍可能因疏忽侵权而负责，如果他未能采取合理注意防止狗逃脱。不关花园门可能被视为粗心，而且一只未拴绳的狗可能造成伤害是可预见的，但咬伤本身是不可预见的。结果不确定，但严格责任很可能不适用；疏忽索赔将取决于让狗逃脱是否构成对注意义务的违反。

---

9. Case Study 9: The Fake ID | 案例九：假身份证

At 15 years old, Chloe wanted to buy an age-restricted video game. She used a computer to design a fake ID card that showed her age as 18. She printed it out and presented it at the shop counter. The shop assistant looked at it briefly and sold her the game. Chloe knew that using a false document to deceive someone is wrong.

15岁的克洛伊想买一款有年龄限制的电子游戏。她用电脑设计了一张假身份证，显示年龄为18岁。她打印出来并在商店柜台出示。店员匆匆看了一下，就把游戏卖给了她。克洛伊知道使用虚假文件欺骗他人是不对的。

Question: What offence might Chloe have committed? Chloe could be guilty of fraud by false representation under the Fraud Act 2006. This offence requires a person to dishonestly make a false representation, intending to make a gain for themselves or cause loss to another. Chloe made a false representation (the fake ID) that she was 18, and she intended to gain the video game. She was dishonest because she knew the ID was not genuine. Even though the shop assistant was not very careful, Chloe’s dishonesty is the key. In addition, she may have committed an offence under the Identity Documents Act 2010 by possessing or using a false identity document with intent. Chloe could face a criminal conviction for fraud.

问题：克洛伊可能犯了什么罪？克洛伊可能犯有《2006年反欺诈法》中的虚假陈述欺诈罪。该罪要求一个人不诚实地做出虚假陈述，意图为自己获取利益或给他人造成损失。克洛伊做出了虚假陈述（假身份证）说她已满18岁，并意图获得电子游戏。她是不诚实的，因为她知道身份证不真实。即使店员不够仔细，克洛伊的不诚实仍是关键。此外，她可能根据《2010年身份文件法》犯有意图使用虚假身份文件的罪行。克洛伊可能因欺诈而被定罪。

---

10. Case Study 10: The Broken Phone | 案例十：摔坏的手机

At school, Olivia asked her classmate Dan if she could look at his new smartphone. Dan handed it to her. While holding it, Olivia was distracted by a friend shouting and dropped the phone onto the hard floor. The screen cracked and the phone stopped working. Olivia immediately apologised and said she did not mean to drop it. Dan had not warned Olivia about how slippery the phone’s case was.

在学校，奥利维亚问同学丹能否看看他的新智能手机。丹把手机递给了她。拿着手机时，奥利维亚被一个朋友的大喊分散了注意力，手机掉在了硬地上。屏幕摔碎了，手机停止工作了。奥利维亚立刻道歉，说她不是故意的。丹没有提醒奥利维亚手机壳有多滑。

Question: Is Olivia legally responsible for the damage to Dan’s phone? This is a question of tort law, specifically negligence or perhaps bailment. When Dan handed the phone to Olivia, she became a bailee (temporary keeper) and owed a duty to take reasonable care of the phone. Dropping the phone because she was distracted might be considered a failure to take reasonable care. However, the situation is a social one between classmates, and the standard of care expected might be lower. If a reasonable person would have been more careful while holding an expensive object, Olivia might be found negligent. Dan could argue that Olivia breached her duty and caused the damage. On the other hand, if the phone case was unusually slippery and Dan did not warn her, Dan might be partly responsible (contributory negligence). In a school context, a court might not wish to enforce such small claims, but in principle, Olivia could be liable in negligence for the cost of repair.

问题：奥利维亚对丹的手机损坏负有法律责任吗？这是一个侵权法问题，确切来说是疏忽或者寄托关系。当丹把手机递给奥利维亚时，她成为了受托人（临时保管人），并负有合理照管手机的义务。因分心而掉落手机可能被视为未能采取合理注意。但是，这种情况是同学间的社交行为，期待的注意标准可能较低。如果一个理性人在持有贵重物品时会更加小心，那么奥利维亚可能被认定为疏忽。丹可以主张奥利维亚违反了义务并导致了损害。另一方面，如果手机壳异常光滑而丹没有提醒她，丹可能需承担部分责任（共同过失）。在学校环境中，法院可能不愿处理此类小额索赔，但原则上，奥利维亚可能因疏忽而负责赔偿维修费用。

---

Published by TutorHao | Law Revision Series | aleveler.com

更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）