Pre-U Cambridge Law: Formula and Test Quick Reference Handbook | Pre-U Cambridge 法律：公式定理速查手册

📚 Pre-U Cambridge Law: Formula and Test Quick Reference Handbook | Pre-U Cambridge 法律：公式定理速查手册

This quick reference is designed for Pre-U Cambridge Law candidates who need to recall the core formulas, tests and structured principles that underpin criminal, tort, contract and public law. Each section gives the rule in its clearest form, followed by the essential elements. Use it as a revision checklist or a memory anchor before the examination.

本速查手册专为 Pre-U Cambridge 法律考生准备，帮助回忆支撑刑法、侵权法、合同法与公法的核心公式、检验标准与结构化原则。每一节以最清晰的形式给出规则，随后列出关键要素。可将其用作考前复习清单或记忆锚点。

1. Actus Reus & Mens Rea Formula | 犯罪行为与犯罪意图公式

The universal equation for criminal liability is: Actus Reus + Mens Rea + Absence of a Defence = Guilt. All three components must be proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

刑事责任的基本公式是：犯罪行为 + 犯罪意图 + 不存在抗辩理由 = 有罪。所有三个要素均须由控方排除合理怀疑地予以证明。

Actus reus must be a voluntary act, or a qualifying omission in situations where a duty of care exists. For result crimes, the prosecution must also establish causation – both factual and legal – linking the defendant’s conduct to the prohibited harm.

犯罪行为必须是自愿的行为，或者在存在注意义务的情形下构成适格的不作为。对于结果犯，控方还必须证明被告的行为与被禁止的损害之间存在因果关系，包括事实因果关系与法律因果关系。

Mens rea refers to the mental element required for the specific offence, such as intention (direct or oblique), recklessness (as defined in R v G), negligence, or knowledge. The coincidence principle demands that actus reus and mens rea occur simultaneously.

犯罪意图指的是特定罪行所要求的主观要素，例如故意（直接或间接）、轻率（依据 R v G 案定义）、疏忽或明知。同时性原则要求犯罪行为与犯罪意图在时间上同时存在。

2. Causation Formula | 因果关系公式

To establish result crimes, the prosecution must satisfy a two-stage causation test: Factual Causation + Legal Causation = Criminal Liability for the Result.

要证明结果犯成立，控方必须满足两阶段因果关系检验：事实因果关系 + 法律因果关系 = 对结果承担刑事责任。

Factual causation is determined by the ‘but for’ test: but for the defendant’s act or omission, would the harm have occurred at the same time and in the same way? If the answer is no, factual causation is present (R v White).

事实因果关系由“若无则不”检验判定：若无被告的行为或不作为，损害是否会在同一时间以同一方式发生？若答案为否，则存在事实因果关系（R v White 案）。

Legal causation requires that the defendant’s conduct was a substantial and operating cause of the harm (R v Smith). The contribution need not be the sole or main cause, but it must be more than minimal. Any intervening act (novus actus interveniens) that breaks the chain of causation must be voluntary, unforeseeable and independent. Medical negligence typically does not break the chain unless it is potent enough to render the original wound merely the setting (R v Cheshire).

法律因果关系要求被告的行为是损害的重大且有效的原因（R v Smith 案）。该贡献不必是唯一或主要原因，但必须超出极小限度。任何打断因果链条的中介行为（新介入行为）须是自愿的、不可预见的且独立的。医疗过失通常不会打断因果链条，除非其严重到使原伤害仅沦为背景（R v Cheshire 案）。

3. Caparo Three-Part Test for Duty of Care | 注意义务的 Caparo 三部分检验

In negligence, a duty of care is established by the Caparo test from Caparo Industries plc v Dickman: Foreseeability of harm + Proximity + Fair, just and reasonable = Duty of Care.

在过失侵权中，注意义务依据 Caparo Industries plc v Dickman 案确立的 Caparo 检验予以认定：损害可预见性 + 近因性 + 公平、公正且合理 = 注意义务。

Element	Key Question	要素
Foreseeability	Would a reasonable person in the defendant’s position have foreseen that the claimant might suffer harm?	处于被告位置的合理人能否预见索赔人可能遭受损害？
Proximity	Is there a relationship of sufficient closeness between the parties, in time, space or relationship?	当事人之间在时间、空间或关系上是否存在足够的紧密联系？
Fair, just and reasonable	Would it be policy‐wise and morally appropriate to impose a duty? Courts consider the wider impact on society and public services.	从政策与道德角度施加义务是否恰当？法院会考量对社会与公共服务的广泛影响。

Caparo is the default test for novel situations; for established categories (doctor‐patient, road users, employer‐employee) a duty already exists by precedent.

Caparo 是处理新型情况的默认检验；对于已确立的类型（医生与患者、道路使用者、雇主与雇员），先例已承认注意义务存在。

4. Neighbour Principle (Original Duty Formula) | 邻居原则（原始注意义务公式）

Lord Atkin’s neighbour principle in Donoghue v Stevenson is the foundation of modern negligence: You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.

Atkin 勋爵在 Donoghue v Stevenson 案中确立的邻居原则是现代过失侵权的基础：你必须采取合理注意，避免那些你可以合理预见很可能伤害你邻居的行为或不作为。

A neighbour is anyone who is so closely and directly affected by your act that you ought reasonably to have them in contemplation. The principle supplies the moral glue for duty of care, though today it is subsumed within the Caparo framework.

邻居是指任何因你的行为而受到如此紧密与直接影响、你理应将其纳入合理考量的人。该原则为注意义务提供了道德粘合剂，尽管今日已被 Caparo 框架所吸收。

5. Offer and Acceptance Formula | 要约与承诺公式

A binding contract is formed when there is Offer + Acceptance + Consideration + Intention to Create Legal Relations. The analysis must be applied objectively to the parties’ communications.

当存在要约 + 承诺 + 对价 + 设立法律关系的意图时，有约束力的合同便告成立。该分析必须从客观角度适用于当事人的沟通行为。

An offer is an expression of willingness to contract on certain terms, made with the intention that it will become binding upon acceptance. It must be distinguished from an invitation to treat (such as goods on display, advertisements, and tender invitations). Acceptance must be a mirror image of the offer; any variation is a counter‐offer that destroys the original offer (Hyde v Wrench).

要约是一方以特定条款缔约的意愿表示，并意图一经承诺即受约束。必须将其与要约邀请（如陈列商品、广告和招标邀请）相区分。承诺必须是要约的镜像；任何变动均构成反要约，并消灭原要约（Hyde v Wrench 案）。

The postal rule states that acceptance by post is effective when the letter is posted, not when it is received (Adams v Lindsell). For instantaneous communications (email, telex, telephone), acceptance takes effect when and where it is received.

邮寄规则规定，通过邮寄进行的承诺在信件投邮时生效，而非在收到时生效（Adams v Lindsell 案）。对于即时通讯（电邮、电传、电话），承诺在其被接收之时与之地生效。

6. Consideration Rules | 对价规则

Consideration is the price for which the promise is bought. The basic formula is: Something of value in the eyes of the law moving from the promisee + sufficiency but not adequacy = Valid Consideration.

对价是购买允诺的代价。其基本公式是：法律眼中由受诺人提供的某种有价值之物 + 充分性但非对等性 = 有效的对价。

Key rules from case law form a checklist: consideration must move from the promisee, but not necessarily to the promisor; it must be sufficient but need not be adequate (Chappell v Nestle – chocolate wrappers were sufficient); past consideration is generally not good consideration (Re McArdle); performance of an existing public or contractual duty is normally insufficient (Stilk v Myrick), unless it confers a practical benefit (Williams v Roffey Bros).

判例法中的关键规则形成一份清单：对价必须由受诺人提供，但不必流向允诺人；必须充分但不必对等（Chappell v Nestle 案——巧克力包装纸被视为充分）；过去的对价通常不构成有效对价（Re McArdle 案）；履行既存的公共义务或合同义务通常不构成充分对价（Stilk v Myrick 案），除非该履行带来了实际利益（Williams v Roffey Bros 案）。

7. Assault and Battery Formula | 威胁与殴打公式

In trespass to the person, the actionable torts follow precise ingredients. Battery = Direct, intentional and unlawful contact with the claimant’s body. Assault = An intentional act which causes the claimant reasonably to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence.

在人身侵犯中，可诉的侵权行为遵循精确的构成要件。殴打 = 直接、故意且非法地接触索赔人的身体。威胁 = 一种故意行为，导致索赔人合理忧虑即将遭受直接且非法的暴力。

For battery, touch can be minimal; hostility is not required (Collins v Wilcock). The contact must be the direct result of the defendant’s voluntary action. For assault, words alone can suffice, and the threat must be of immediate force – often interpreted as within a range of minutes (R v Ireland extended this to silence in a harassment context, but for tort the immediacy requirement remains robust).

就殴打而言，触碰可以极轻微；不要求具有敌意（Collins v Wilcock 案）。该接触必须为被告自愿行为的直接结果。就威胁而言，仅凭言辞即可构成，且威胁必须是即时暴力的——通常被解释为数分钟之内（R v Ireland 案在骚扰语境中将其扩展至沉默，但在侵权法中即时性要求依然严格）。

8. Self-Defence Checklist (Criminal and Tort) | 自我防卫清单（刑事与侵权）

Self-defence operates as a complete defence to crimes of violence and to torts such as trespass to the person. The formula is: Honest belief in the need to act + Reasonable force in the circumstances = Self-Defence.

自我防卫是对暴力犯罪及诸如人身侵犯等侵权行为的完全抗辩。其公式为：诚实地相信有必要采取行动 + 在当时情况下使用合理武力 = 自我防卫。

Was the defendant’s belief genuine, even if mistaken? The test is subjective (R v Williams (Gladstone)).

被告的相信是否真实，即使是错误认识？检验标准属主观（R v Williams (Gladstone) 案）。
Was the degree of force reasonable in the circumstances as the defendant honestly believed them to be? This is an objective assessment, allowing for the fact that a person in a moment of crisis cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of force (R v Palmer; s.76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008).

在被告诚实相信的情境下，武力的程度是否合理？此为客观评估，但允许考虑到身处危机之人无法精确衡量武力分寸（R v Palmer 案；2008 年刑事司法与移民法第 76 条）。
Pre-emptive strikes are permitted if the threat is imminent; there is no duty to retreat, though a willingness to retreat is evidence of reasonable force.

若威胁迫在眉睫，允许先发制人；没有撤退义务，但愿意撤退是武力合理的证据。

9. Proportionality Test (Human Rights and Judicial Review) | 比例性检验（人权与司法审查）

When a public authority interferes with a qualified Convention right, the court applies the structured proportionality test. This formula is often expressed as four limbs: Legitimate aim + Rational connection + Necessity + Fair balance (strict proportionality).

当公共机构干涉一项受限制的公约权利时，法院适用结构化的比例性检验。该公式通常表述为四个分支：正当目的 + 合理关联 + 必要性 + 公平平衡（严格比例性）。

Was the measure adopted for a sufficiently important legitimate aim?

采取措施是否为了足够重要的正当目的？
Is there a rational connection between the measure and that aim?

措施与该目的之间是否存在合理关联？
Was the measure no more than necessary to achieve the aim? (Could a less intrusive alternative have sufficed?)

措施是否未超出实现该目的所必需的限度？（是否存在侵扰性更小的替代方案？）
Does the measure strike a fair balance between the rights of the individual and the interests of the community? This final limb is often decisive under the Human Rights Act 1998.

措施是否在个人权利与社群利益之间达成了公平平衡？在 1998 年人权法之下，这最后一个分支常具决定性。

10. Grounds of Judicial Review Formula | 司法审查理由公式

Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (GCHQ) set out the three classic heads of review: Judicial Review = Illegality + Irrationality + Procedural Impropriety. Proportionate review now supplements these grounds in rights‐based cases.

Diplock 勋爵在 Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service（GCHQ 案）中确立了三个经典审查理由：司法审查 = 违法性 + 不合理性 + 程序不当。在基于权利的案件中，比例性审查现已对这些理由构成补充。

Ground	Test	理由
Illegality	Did the decision‐maker correctly understand and apply the law? (Includes acting ultra vires, improper purpose, fettering discretion.)	决策者是否正确理解并适用了法律？（包括越权行为、不当目的、束缚裁量权。）
Irrationality	Was the decision so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person could have reached it? (Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation)	决定是否在逻辑上或公认道德标准上如此荒谬，以至任何理智之人都不会作出？(Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation 案)
Procedural Impropriety	Was there a breach of statutory procedural requirements, or a breach of natural justice (right to a fair hearing & rule against bias)?	是否存在违反法定程序要求，或违反自然正义（公平听审权与反对偏见规则）的情形？

Claimants may also rely on legitimate expectation, where a clear and unambiguous promise or practice by a public body creates a procedural or substantive right.

索赔人还可援引合法期待，即公共机构明确且不含糊的承诺或惯例产生了程序性或实体性权利。

11. Rules of Statutory Interpretation | 法律解释规则

Judges employ a hierarchy of approaches to interpret legislation. The four classical rules can be remembered by the mnemonic LGM²: Literal Rule → Golden Rule → Mischief Rule → Purposive Approach. Each rule is triggered under different circumstances.

法官运用一套层级化的方法来解释立法。四个经典规则可由助记符 LGM² 记忆：字面规则 → 黄金规则 → 弊端规则 → 目的解释法。每一规则在不同情形下被激活。

Literal Rule: Words are given their plain, ordinary dictionary meaning, even if the result is harsh (Whitely v Chappell – defendant acquitted of impersonating ‘any person entitled to vote’ because the person was dead).

字面规则：词语依其通常的字典含义理解，即使结果严苛（Whitely v Chappell 案——因死者不属“有权投票之人”，被告被判无罪）。
Golden Rule: The court may depart from the literal meaning if it leads to an absurdity that Parliament could not have intended; applied narrowly to choose between meanings, or widely to correct a repugnant result (R v Allen – ‘marry’ interpreted as ‘go through a marriage ceremony’).

黄金规则：若字面含义导致议会不可能意欲的荒谬结果，法院可偏离字面含义；狭义用于在多种含义间选择，广义用于纠正令人反感的结果（R v Allen 案——将“结婚”解释为“举行婚礼仪式”）。
Mischief Rule: The court looks at the common law before the Act and the defect or mischief the statute was designed to remedy (Smith v Hughes – soliciting ‘in a street’ covered a balcony because the mischief was harassment).

弊端规则：法院考察该法令之前的普通法以及该制定法意图弥补的缺陷或弊端（Smith v Hughes 案——在“街上”拉客包括阳台，因为弊端在于骚扰）。
Purposive Approach: The court interprets legislation in the light of its purpose and the intention of Parliament, using broad contextual material (aided by Pepper v Hart and the Human Rights Act 1998 s.3 duty to read legislation compatibly with Convention rights).

目的解释法：法院根据立法目的和议会意图解释立法，利用宽泛的背景资料（辅以 Pepper v Hart 案和 1998 年人权法第 3 条，有义务以符合公约权利的方式解读立法）。

12. Burden and Standard of Proof | 举证责任与证明标准

The rule on proof in criminal law is encapsulated by two nested formulas. Burden of Proof: Prosecution bears the legal burden → Standard: Beyond reasonable doubt. For defences, the evidential burden falls on the defendant, but once raised the prosecution must disprove the defence to the criminal standard, unless a reverse legal burden explicitly applies (e.g., insanity).

刑法中的证明规则可由两个嵌套公式概括。举证责任：控方承担法定举证责任 → 标准：排除合理怀疑。就抗辩而言，提供证据的责任在于被告，但一经提出，控方必须按刑事标准反驳该抗辩，除非明确适用倒置的法定举证责任（如精神病抗辩）。

In civil law, the formula is simpler: Claimant bears the burden → Standard: Balance of probabilities (more likely than not). The difference in standard explains why a defendant may be acquitted in a criminal court but found liable for the same act in tort.

在民法中，公式更为简单：索赔人承担举证责任 → 标准：盖然性权衡（可能性大于不可能性）。证明标准的差异解释了为何被告可能在刑事法庭被宣告无罪，却就同一行为在侵权中被判负有责任。

Published by TutorHao | Law Revision Series | aleveler.com

更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）

Pre-U Cambridge Law: Formula and Test Quick Reference Handbook | Pre-U Cambridge 法律：公式定理速查手册