📚 Year 13 WJEC Law: Quick Reference Handbook of Legal Principles & Tests | WJEC 法律 Year 13：法律原则与测试速查手册
This quick reference handbook distils the essential legal 'formulae' – tests, definitions and key case authorities – required for Year 13 WJEC A-Level Law. Mastering these building blocks will help you apply the law to problem questions with precision and confidence.
本速查手册提炼了 Year 13 WJEC A-Level 法律课程中必备的核心法律“公式”——即各种测试标准、定义和关键判例指引。掌握这些基础模块，将帮助你精准且自信地将法律规则应用于问题分析。
1. Actus Reus: The Guilty Act | 犯罪行为：有罪的行为
Actus reus describes the external physical element of a crime. It can consist of a voluntary act, a failure to act where a duty exists (omission), or a state of affairs. The prosecution must prove that the defendant's conduct was voluntary and, where relevant, caused the prohibited result.
犯罪行为描述的是犯罪的外部客观要素。它可以是自愿的作为，也可以是在存在法律义务时的不作为，或某种状态。控方必须证明被告的行为是自愿的，并且在必要时应证明该行为造成了被禁止的后果。
Actus Reus = Voluntary Conduct + Any Required Circumstances + Prohibited Result
犯罪行为 = 自愿行为 + 任何必要的情节要素 + 被禁止的结果
Omissions attract liability only if the defendant was under a recognised duty to act. Such duties arise by statute, contract, relationship, assumption of care, danger creation (R v Miller) or public office.
不作为仅在被告负有公认的作为义务时才产生刑事责任。此类义务可源于制定法、合同、特殊关系、自愿承担照管、制造危险（R v Miller 案）或公职身份。
2. Causation: Linking Conduct to Result | 因果关系：联系行为与结果
For result crimes, the prosecution must establish both factual causation and legal causation. The two-stage test links the defendant's act to the consequence.
对于结果犯，控方必须同时证明事实因果关系和法律因果关系。这一两阶段测试将被告的行为与结果联系起来。
Factual causation is established using the 'but for' test: but for the defendant's act, the result would not have occurred (R v White). If the result would have happened anyway, the chain is broken.
事实因果关系采用“若无则不”标准：若无被告的行为，该结果就不会发生（R v White 案）。若结果无论如何都会发生，则因果链断裂。
Legal causation requires that the defendant's act be a substantial and operative cause of the result (R v Smith). An intervening act (novus actus interveniens) may break the chain of causation, but only if it is unforeseeable, voluntary and independent. The thin skull rule (R v Blaue) means the defendant must take the victim as they find them.
法律因果关系要求被告的行为是结果的重大且有效的致因（R v Smith 案）。介入行为（新介入行为）可打破因果链条，但仅当其不可预见、自愿且独立时方能成立。蛋壳脑袋规则（R v Blaue 案）意味着被告必须接受受害人的原有特质。
Causation = 'But for' test (Factual) + Substantial & Operating Cause (Legal)
因果关系 = “若无则不”测试（事实） + 重大且有效的致因（法律）
3. Mens Rea: The Guilty Mind | 犯罪意图：有罪的心理
Mens rea is the mental element required for most crimes. The highest level is intention, which can be direct (defendant's aim or purpose) or oblique (the result was a virtual certainty and the defendant appreciated that). Recklessness is the conscious taking of an unjustified risk.
犯罪意图是多数犯罪所要求的主观心理要件。最高级别为故意，可分为直接故意（被告的目的或意图）或间接故意（结果几乎是必然的且被告对此认识到）。轻率是指有意识地冒不合理风险。
Mens Rea: Intention (Direct / Oblique) OR Recklessness (Subjective)
犯罪意图：故意（直接 / 间接）或轻率（主观）
For oblique intention, the jury applies the virtual certainty test from R v Woollin: the defendant must have foreseen death or serious harm as a virtually certain consequence of their act. Recklessness uses the Cunningham subjective standard: did the defendant foresee the risk and go on to take it unreasonably? The House of Lords in R v G reaffirmed this subjective approach for criminal damage.
对于间接故意，陪审团适用 R v Woollin 案的几乎必然标准：被告必须预见到死亡或严重伤害是其行为的几乎必然之结果。轻率适用 Cunningham 主观标准：被告是否预见到了风险却仍然不合理地实施该行为？上议院在 R v G 案中再次确认了这一主观标准适用于刑事毁坏。
4. Coincidence of AR and MR & Transferred Malice | 行为与意图的同时性与转移恶意
The general rule is that the actus reus and mens rea must coincide in time. Courts interpret this flexibly when a series of acts forms a single transaction (Fagan v MPC; Thabo Meli v R).
一般原则要求犯罪行为与犯罪意图必须在时间上同时发生。当一系列行为构成一个连续的单一过程时，法院会对此作灵活解释（Fagan v MPC 案；Thabo Meli v R 案）。
Transferred malice applies when the defendant intends to harm one person but accidentally harms another. The mens rea directed at the intended victim is transferred to the actual victim, provided the actus reus is the same type of crime (R v Latimer; R v Pembliton).
转移恶意规则适用于被告意图伤害一人却不慎伤害了另一人的情形。只要犯罪行为属于同一类型，针对原意图受害人的犯罪意图便可转移至实际受害人（R v Latimer 案；R v Pembliton 案）。
5. Strict Liability: No Mens Rea Required | 严格责任：无需犯罪意图
Some offences, often regulatory or social concern crimes, require no proof of mens rea for at least one element of the actus reus. The defendant can be convicted simply by proving the physical act was done voluntarily.
某些犯罪，通常是监管性或涉及社会公共利益的犯罪，对其犯罪行为的至少一个要素不要求证明犯罪意图。只要证明被告自愿实施了客观行为，即可定罪。
Strict Liability = Actus Reus Only (No Mens Rea for Key Element)
严格责任 = 仅需犯罪行为（关键要素无犯罪意图要求）
When determining whether an offence is one of strict liability, courts start by presuming mens rea is required, then examine the statute's wording, the mischief it addresses and the severity of the penalty (Gammon Ltd v Attorney-General of Hong Kong). Common examples include selling alcohol to a minor and certain food safety offences.
法院在判断某一罪行是否属于严格责任时，首先推定要求犯罪意图，然后审查法条用语、所针对的问题以及处罚的严厉性（Gammon Ltd v Attorney-General of Hong Kong 案）。常见例子包括向未成年人售酒和某些食品安全违法。
6. Murder: The Core Homicide Offence | 谋杀：核心杀人罪
Murder is the most serious homicide offence, carrying a mandatory life sentence. Its definition comes from Sir Edward Coke and common law refinement.
谋杀是最严重的杀人罪行，法定刑为终身监禁。其定义源于爱德华·柯克爵士，并经普通法发展细化。
l killing of a reasonable person in being under the Queen’s peace with malice aforethought
谋杀 = 在女王治下非法杀害一个有理性生命的人，且具有预谋恶意
Malice aforethought means an intention to kill or an intention to cause grievous bodily harm (GBH) (R v Vickers; R v Cunningham). The actus reus is the unlawful killing, which must be voluntary and causative. A person is 'in being' once fully expelled from the mother and living independently, though brain stem death can mark legal death.
预谋恶意指意图杀人或意图造成严重身体伤害（R v Vickers 案；R v Cunningham 案）。犯罪行为是非法杀害，必须出于自愿且具有因果关系。当胎儿完全脱离母体并独立存活时即为“有生命的人”，而脑干死亡则标志法律上的死亡。
7. Voluntary Manslaughter: Loss of Control & Diminished Responsibility | 自愿过失杀人：失控与减轻责任
Voluntary manslaughter arises where the defendant has the actus reus and mens rea of murder but successfully pleads one of the two partial defences under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. A successful plea reduces the conviction from murder to manslaughter.
自愿过失杀人发生在被告具有谋杀的行为和意图，但成功援引《2009 年死因裁判官与司法法案》下两项部分辩护理由之一的情形。辩护成功可将定罪由谋杀降为过失杀人。
Loss of control (s.54) requires: (1) the defendant lost self-control; (2) the loss of control was triggered by a qualifying trigger (fear of serious violence or things said/done of an extremely grave character giving a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged); and (3) a person of normal tolerance and self-restraint would have reacted similarly. Sexual infidelity alone is not sufficient.
失控（第54条）须满足：(1) 被告丧失了自我控制；(2) 失控由适格触发事由引起（对严重暴力的恐惧，或具有极端严重性质且使被告产生情有可原的被严重冤枉感的言行）；(3) 正常容忍度和自控力的人在该情况下也会作出类似反应。仅凭性不忠不足以构成。
Diminished responsibility (s.52) applies where the defendant suffered from an abnormality of mental functioning arising from a recognised medical condition, which substantially impaired their ability to understand the nature of their conduct, form a rational judgment or exercise self-control, and which provides an explanation for the killing.
减轻责任（第52条）适用于被告因公认的医学状况导致精神功能异常，从而实质性损害了其理解行为性质、形成理性判断或行使自我控制的能力，并且该异常为杀人行为提供了原因。
8. Involuntary Manslaughter: Unlawful Act and Gross Negligence | 非自愿过失杀人：非法行为与重大过失
Involuntary manslaughter covers killings where the defendant lacks the mens rea for murder but their conduct still merits criminal sanction. Two main forms exist: unlawful act manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter.
非自愿过失杀人指被告不具有谋杀的主观故意，但其行为仍应受刑事制裁的杀人行为。主要存在两种形式：非法行为过失杀人和重大过失过失杀人。
Unlawful Act Manslaughter = Intentional unlawful act + Dangerous + Causes death
非法行为过失杀人 = 故意的非法行为 + 具有危险性 + 导致死亡
The unlawful act must be a crime (R v Franklin), intentional (R v Lamb), and objectively dangerous – a sober and reasonable person would foresee the risk of some harm (R v Church). The act must cause the death (R v Dawson).
非法行为必须构成刑事犯罪（R v Franklin 案），须是故意的（R v Lamb 案），且在客观上具有危险性——冷静理智之人会预见到某种伤害风险（R v Church 案）。该行为必须导致死亡（R v Dawson 案）。
nce Manslaughter = Duty of care + Breach + Risk of death + Gross negligence + Causes death
重大过失过失杀人 = 注意义务 + 违反义务 + 死亡风险 + 重大过失 + 造成死亡
The five-stage Adomako test requires: a duty of care between the defendant and victim, breach of that duty, a serious and obvious risk of death, conduct so grossly negligent as to deserve criminal punishment, and factual causation of death.
五阶段 Adomako 测试要求：被告与受害人之间存在注意义务，违反了该义务，存在严重且明显的死亡风险，行为严重疏忽以至于应当受到刑事处罚，并造成死亡的事实因果。
9. Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person | 针对人身的非致命犯罪
WJEC candidates must know the hierarchy of non-fatal offences under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and common law. Each offence has distinct actus reus and mens rea.
WJEC 考生必须掌握《1861 年侵害人身罪法案》及普通法下非致命犯罪的层级体系。每一项罪行均有独特的犯罪行为与犯罪意图。
Assault → Battery → ABH (s.47) → GBH (s.20) → GBH with intent (s.18)
威吓 → 殴打 → 实际身体伤害（第47条）→ 严重身体伤害（第20条）→ 意图造成严重身体伤害（第18条）
Assault: causing the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful force, with intention or recklessness (R v Ireland). Battery: the actual infliction of unlawful force without consent, with the same mens rea. Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH, s.47): assault or battery that causes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with health or comfort (R v Miller), mens rea is the same as for the base assault/battery.
威吓：使受害人担忧即将面临非法暴力，主观为故意或轻率（R v Ireland 案）。殴打：实际施加非法暴力且未经同意，主观心态同上。实际身体伤害（第47条）：威吓或殴打造成了任何妨害健康或舒适的伤害（R v Miller 案），主观要件与基础威吓/殴打相同。
Malicious wounding or inflicting GBH (s.20) requires a wound (broken skin) or really serious harm, with mens rea of intention or Cunningham recklessness as to some harm. Wounding or causing GBH with intent (s.18) demands proof of specific intent to cause GBH or resist arrest, carrying a maximum life sentence.
恶意伤人致重伤（第20条）要求造成创伤（皮肤破损）或真正严重伤害，主观为故意或 Cunningham 轻率对某些伤害。意图重伤致人重伤（第18条）则须证明导致重伤或抗拒逮捕的具体故意，最高量刑为终身监禁。
10. Property Offences: Theft, Robbery & Burglary | 财产犯罪：盗窃、抢劫与入室盗窃
The Theft Act 1968 creates the core property offences. Theft is the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the owner of it.
《1968 年盗窃法案》规定了核心财产犯罪。盗窃是指以永久剥夺他人财产为目的，不诚实地将他人的财产据为己有。
priation + Property + Belonging to another + Dishonesty + Intention to permanently deprive
盗窃（第1条） = 占有 + 财产 + 属于他人 + 不诚实 + 永久剥夺的意图
Appropriation includes taking, keeping or dealing with property as if you are the owner. The Ghosh test for dishonesty has been replaced by the Ivey test: was the defendant's conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people, and did the defendant realise this? Intention to permanently deprive includes borrowing for a period equivalent to outright taking (R v Lloyd).
占有包括将他人财产当作自己财产对待的任何行为。关于不诚实的 Ghosh 测试已被 Ivey 测试所取代：被告的行为在一般正直人群的标准下是否不诚实，以及被告是否意识到这一点？永久剥夺的意图包括借用时间足以等同于直接取走的情形（R v Lloyd 案）。
Robbery (s.8) is aggravated theft: a person must steal, and immediately before or at the time of doing so use force or threaten force upon any person, with intent to steal. Burglary (s.9) can be committed by entering a building as a trespasser with intent to steal, inflict GBH or cause unlawful damage, or after so entering, stealing or inflicting GBH.
抢劫（第8条）是加重盗窃：须在盗窃行为实施的同时或紧接之前，对任何人使用暴力或威胁使用暴力，且以盗窃为目的。入室盗窃（第9条）可以通过以侵入者身份进入建筑并意图盗窃、造成严重身体伤害或非法毁坏而构成，也可以在同样侵入后实施盗窃或造成严重身体伤害而构成。
11. General Defences: Excuses and Justifications | 一般辩护：免责与正当理由
Defences like self-defence, intoxication, automatism, duress and insanity can remove or reduce liability. Their structure is often expressed as a test the jury must apply.
诸如自我防卫、醉态、自动症、胁迫及精神失常等辩护理由可免除或减轻责任。其结构常常呈现为陪审团必须适用的检验标准。
= Honest belief in need for force + Reasonable (proportionate) force in the circumstances
自我防卫 = 真诚相信需要使用武力 + 在当时情形下使用合理（相称）的武力
The defendant's belief need not be reasonable, but the more unreasonable the belief, the less likely the jury will find it honestly held (s.76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008; R v Williams (Gladstone)). Force must be proportionate, but there is no requirement to weigh niceties when acting in the heat of the moment.
被告的信念不必须合理，但信念越不合理，陪审团越不可能认为其是真诚持有的（《2008 年刑事审判与移民法》第76条；R v Williams (Gladstone) 案）。武力必须相称，但在紧急关头不要求斤斤计较。
Intoxication: voluntary intoxication may negate specific intent crimes if it prevents the defendant from forming the required intent (DPP v Majewski), but it cannot excuse basic intent crimes if the defendant would have foreseen the risk had they been sober. Involuntary intoxication is a full defence if the defendant lacked mens rea.
醉态：自愿醉态若使被告无法形成特定故意犯罪所要求的故意，则可否定该罪（DPP v Majewski 案）；但对于基本故意犯罪，若被告清醒时本应预见风险，则不能免责。非自愿醉态在下述情形下为完全辩护理由：被告因此缺乏犯罪意图。
Duress by threats requires a threat of death or serious injury, aimed at the defendant or immediate family, with no reasonable opportunity to escape and no voluntary association with violent criminals (R v Graham; R v Hasan). The defence is unavailable for murder or attempted murder.
胁迫受威胁辩护要求存在死亡或严重伤害的威胁，针对被告或其近亲属，被告没有合理逃避机会，且未自愿与暴力罪犯为伍（R v Graham 案；R v Hasan 案）。该辩护不适用于谋杀或谋杀未遂。
Automatism is a denial of actus reus: the defendant's action must be an involuntary movement caused by an external factor (e.g. blow to the head, swarm of bees) rather than an internal disease. Insanity (M'Naghten Rules) covers internal causes and requires a defect of reason from a disease of the mind, leading to a lack of knowledge of the nature or wrongness of the act.
自动症是对犯罪行为的否定：被告的行为必须是由外部因素（例如头部打击、蜂群袭击）而非内在疾病导致的无意识动作。精神失常（M'Naghten 规则）涵盖内在原因，要求因精神疾病导致理性缺失，从而不知晓行为性质或错误。
Published by TutorHao | Law Revision Series | aleveler.com
更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）
或截图后用「扫一扫 → 相册」选择本图