Case Analysis in Practice for Cambridge IGCSE Law | IGCSE 剑桥法律：案例分析实战演练

📚 Case Analysis in Practice for Cambridge IGCSE Law | IGCSE 剑桥法律：案例分析实战演练

Case analysis is the core skill tested in Cambridge IGCSE Law. Candidates do not simply recite rules; they must read a factual problem, identify the legal issues, select the relevant rules, apply them to the facts, and reach a reasoned conclusion. This article provides a practical guide to analysing both criminal and civil law scenarios under exam conditions.

案例分析是剑桥 IGCSE 法律考试的核心能力。考生不能只背诵规则，而必须阅读案情、识别法律争议点、选择相关规则、将规则适用于事实，并得出有理由的结论。本文提供在考试条件下分析刑事和民事法律情景的实用指南。

---

1. What is case analysis? | 什么是案例分析

In law, case analysis means breaking down a problem into its legal components. A set of facts is never just a story; it contains possible breaches of criminal law, civil wrongs, or disputes over rights and duties. Your task is to find those components and test them against the law.

在法律中，案例分析意味着将问题拆解为法律组成部分。一组事实从来不只是故事；它可能包含刑事违法、民事侵权或权利义务争议。你的任务是找出这些组成部分，并用法律来检验它们。

Strong answers show that you understand why a legal rule exists and how it operates, rather than simply naming a case or section.

高分答案表明你理解法律规则为何存在以及如何运作，而不是仅仅说出案例或条文名称。

---

2. The IRAC method | IRAC 方法

A reliable framework for legal problem solving is IRAC: Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion. First state the question the court must decide. Next state the legal rule that governs that question. Then apply the rule to the specific facts. Finally give a clear conclusion on the likely outcome.

法律问题解决的一个可靠框架是 IRAC：争议点、规则、适用、结论。首先陈述法院必须决定的问题。其次陈述管辖该问题的法律规则。然后将规则适用于具体事实。最后给出关于可能结果的明确结论。

For example, if the issue is whether a defendant is liable for negligence, the rule may come from Donoghue v Stevenson and Caparo v Dickman. Application means comparing the facts with the elements of duty, breach and damage.

例如，如果争议点是被告是否承担过失侵权责任，规则可能来自 Donoghue v Stevenson 和 Caparo v Dickman。适用意味着将事实与义务、违反和损害等要件进行比较。

---

3. Reading the facts and spotting issues | 阅读事实与识别争议点

Begin by reading the scenario twice. On the first reading, underline every event, relationship, item of property, injury, or statement that could have legal significance. On the second reading, label each issue by area of law, such as ‘theft’, ‘assault’, ‘negligence’ or ‘breach of contract’.

开始时将情景阅读两遍。第一遍阅读时，在每个可能具有法律意义的事件、关系、财产、伤害或陈述下划线。第二遍阅读时，按法律领域标记每个争议点，例如 ‘盗窃’、’攻击’、’过失侵权’ 或 ‘违约’。

Do not invent facts that are not present. If the scenario does not say the defendant intended to permanently deprive, state that this element is unclear and explain what a court would need to infer.

不要虚构不存在的事实。如果情景没有说明被告有永久剥夺的意图，就要指出该要件不明确，并解释法院需要推断什么。

---

4. Finding the legal rule | 寻找法律规则

Once an issue is identified, choose the rule with precise elements. In criminal law, many offences come from statutes, such as the Theft Act 1968. In tort and contract, common law cases often supply the rule.

一旦识别出争议点，就要选择具有精确要件的规则。在刑法中，许多罪行来自成文法，例如 1968 年《盗窃法》。在侵权法和合同法中，普通法判例通常提供规则。

For theft, section 1 Theft Act 1968 states that a person is guilty if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. Each part must be checked.

关于盗窃，1968 年《盗窃法》第 1 条规定，如果一个人不诚实地占有属于他人的财产，并意图永久剥夺他人财产，即构成犯罪。每个部分都必须检查。

---

5. Applying law to facts | 将法律适用于事实

Application is where most marks are won or lost. For every element, write a sentence linking a fact to the law. Avoid saying ‘this element is satisfied’ without showing which fact satisfies it and why.

法律适用是得分与否的关键所在。对于每个要件，写一句话将事实与法律联系起来。避免只说 ‘该要件已满足’，而不说明哪个事实满足了它以及为什么。

Example: ‘The defendant took the bicycle without permission. This is an appropriation because he assumed the rights of the owner. The bicycle belonged to another person because it was the neighbour’s property.’ That is application.

例如：’被告未经许可取走自行车。这属于占有行为，因为他行使了所有人的权利。自行车属于他人，因为它是邻居的财产。’ 这就是法律适用。

---

6. Judicial precedent in action | 先例的实际运用

Under the doctrine of precedent, lower courts must follow decisions of higher courts. In an exam, you may need to explain how a precedent applies or how it can be distinguished.

根据先例原则，下级法院必须遵循上级法院的判决。在考试中，你可能需要解释某个先例如何适用，或者如何加以区别。

A case can be distinguished if its material facts differ from the present facts. For example, a precedent about a driver who saw a specific victim may not bind a case where the claimant was an unseen pedestrian, unless the legal principle is broad enough.

如果先例的关键事实与当前事实不同，就可以进行区别。例如，关于司机看见特定受害人的先例，可能对受害人为未被看见的行人的案件没有约束力，除非法律原则足够宽泛。

---

7. Criminal case walkthrough: theft | 刑事案例分析：盗窃罪

Imagine Adam enters a shop and takes a bottle of water without paying. He says he forgot to pay. Discuss his criminal liability for theft.

想象亚当进入商店，未付款拿走一瓶水。他说他忘了付款。讨论其盗窃罪的刑事责任。

Issue: whether Adam is guilty of theft under s1 Theft Act 1968. Rule: dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with intention to permanently deprive. Application: taking the bottle is appropriation because Adam assumed the owner’s rights. The bottle belonged to the shop. The key dispute is dishonesty and intention to permanently deprive. If Adam deliberately planned to take the bottle, he is likely dishonest under the ordinary standards test now set out in Ivey v Genting Casinos. If he genuinely forgot, there is no dishonesty and no intention to deprive, so theft would not be made out.

争议点：亚当是否根据 1968 年《盗窃法》第 1 条构成盗窃罪。规则：不诚实地占有属于他人的财产，并意图永久剥夺。适用：拿走瓶子是占有行为，因为亚当行使了店主权利。瓶子属于商店。主要争议是不诚实和永久剥夺意图。如果亚当故意拿走瓶子，根据 Ivey v Genting Casinos 案中确立的普通标准测试，他很可能不诚实。如果他确实忘记，就没有不诚实，也没有剥夺意图，因此不构成盗窃罪。

Conclusion: a court would probably acquit if it believes the forgetfulness explanation; if the facts suggest concealment or prior intention, conviction is more likely.

结论：如果法院相信遗忘的解释，很可能会判无罪；如果事实表明隐藏或事先有意图，则更有可能定罪。

---

8. Civil case walkthrough: negligence | 民事案例分析：过失侵权

Scenario: Priya slips on a wet floor in a supermarket. The cleaner had placed a warning sign, but it had fallen over ten minutes earlier. Discuss whether the supermarket owes Priya a duty of care and has breached it.

情景：普里亚在超市湿滑地板上滑倒。清洁工曾放置了警示牌，但十分钟前倒了。讨论超市是否对普里亚负有注意义务并违反了该义务。

Issue: negligence. Rule: a duty of care arises where harm is reasonably foreseeable, there is sufficient proximity, and it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty (Caparo v Dickman). An occupier also owes a common duty of care under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. Breach is judged by the standard of a reasonable person.

争议点：过失侵权。规则：当损害可合理预见、有充分邻近性且施加义务公平公正合理时，即产生注意义务（Caparo v Dickman）。根据 1957 年《占有人责任法》，占有人还负有普通注意义务。违反与否以合理人标准判断。

Application: a wet floor in a supermarket creates a foreseeable risk of slipping. The supermarket clearly has control of the premises, so proximity and fairness are satisfied. The question is breach: leaving a wet floor with no effective warning for ten minutes is likely to fall below the standard of a reasonable occupier. The fallen sign suggests the warning system was not maintained.

适用：超市湿滑地板造成可预见的滑倒风险。超市显然对场所具有控制力，因此邻近性与公平性得到满足。问题在于是否违反义务：湿滑地板在十分钟内没有有效警示，很可能低于合理占有人的注意标准。倒下的警示牌表明警示系统未得到维护。

Conclusion: Priya is likely to succeed in negligence, though her damages may be reduced if she failed to take reasonable care for her own safety.

结论：普里亚很可能在过失侵权诉讼中胜诉，但如果她未对自己的安全尽合理注意，损害赔偿金可能被扣减。

---

9. Using statutes alongside cases | 成文法与判例结合

Many exam answers require both statute and case law. First quote or paraphrase the statutory section. Then show how courts have interpreted its words. For example, under the Theft Act, ‘dishonesty’ is not fully defined, so case law fills the gap.

许多考试答案要求同时引用成文法和判例法。首先引用或转述法条。然后说明法院如何解释其中的措辞。例如，在《盗窃法》中，’不诚实’ 并未被完全定义，因此判例法填补了这一空白。

When using cases, avoid long factual narratives. State the principle briefly: ‘In Ivey v Genting Casinos, the Supreme Court held that dishonesty is judged by the standards of ordinary decent people, without requiring the defendant to realise that others would regard the conduct as dishonest.’

使用案例时，避免长篇叙述事实。简要陈述原则：’在 Ivey v Genting Casinos 案中，最高法院认为不诚实应根据普通正派人的标准来判断，而不要求被告认识到他人会认为该行为不诚实。’

---

10. Common pitfalls and how to avoid them | 常见错误与避免方法

Pitfall one is writing a general essay about the law instead of answering the problem. Always link each rule back to the exact facts of the scenario.

常见错误一是写一篇关于法律的一般性文章，而不是回答问题。始终将每条规则与情景中的确切事实联系起来。

Pitfall two is ignoring missing facts. If an element cannot be proven from the given facts, say so and explain what would be needed. This shows examiner-level judgement.

常见错误二是忽略缺失的事实。如果某一要件无法从给定事实中证明，就要说明，并解释还需要什么。这显示了考官级别的判断力。

Pitfall three is mixing up criminal and civil outcomes. Criminal law leads to conviction and punishment; civil law leads to liability and remedies such as damages. Do not say a defendant is ‘guilty of negligence’.

常见错误三是混淆刑事和民事结果。刑法

Published by TutorHao | IGCSE 法律 Revision Series | aleveler.com

更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）