📚 Year 12 CAIE Law: Vocabulary & Terminology Quick Memorisation Guide | A Level法律词汇术语速记指南
Mastering core legal terminology is the foundation of success in CAIE AS Law. This guide provides clear definitions, memorable examples, and bilingual explanations for the most frequently tested terms in Criminal Law, Tort Law, and Contract Law. By linking English phrases with their Chinese equivalents and visual memory hooks, you can speed up recall and deepen understanding for both essay and problem questions.
掌握核心法律术语是CAIE AS法律成功的基础。本指南为刑法、侵权法和合同法中最常考查的术语提供清晰定义、易记案例和双语解释。通过将英文短语与其对应的中文联系起来，并借助视觉化记忆挂钩，你可以加快回忆速度，并加深对论文题和情景题的理解。
1. Actus Reus and Mens Rea | 犯罪行为与犯罪意图
Actus reus is the 'guilty act', comprising the physical elements of a crime: conduct, any required consequences, and the circumstances in which the act occurs. For example, in murder, the actus reus is the unlawful killing of a human being.
Actus reus指“犯罪行为”，包含犯罪的客观要素：行为、所要求的结果以及行为发生的情境。例如，在谋杀罪中，犯罪行为是非法杀人。
Mens rea is the 'guilty mind', the mental element required for the offence. It can take the form of intention (direct or oblique) or recklessness (Cunningham recklessness for most offences). The concept 'actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea' means an act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty.
Mens rea是“犯罪意图”，即犯罪所要求的主观要素。它可以表现为故意（直接或间接）或轻率（大多数犯罪适用Cunningham轻率标准）。“无犯意即无犯罪行为”这一格言意味着，仅有行为而缺乏犯意并不构成犯罪。
Memory hook: Think of 'Actus = Action, Mens = Mind'. Picture a hand (action) next to a brain (mind).
记忆窍门：想象“Actus = 行动（Action），Mens = 心智（Mind）”。画一只手（行动）旁边放一个大脑（心智）。
| Term | Meaning | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Direct intent | D's aim or purpose to bring about the consequence (R v Mohan) | Firing a gun at close range |
| Oblique intent | Consequence was a virtual certainty and D appreciated this (R v Woollin) | Throwing a baby against a wall, foreseeing death or serious harm as virtually certain |
| Cunningham recklessness | D foresaw the risk and unreasonably took it | Removing a gas meter without checking for leaks, foreseeing risk of harm (R v Cunningham) |
2. Causation: Factual and Legal | 因果关系：事实上与法律上
Causation links D's act to the prohibited consequence. Factual causation is established by the 'but for' test: but for D's conduct, would the result have occurred? (R v White).
因果关系将被告的行为与禁止性结果联系起来。事实因果关系通过“若无则不”标准确立：若非被告的行为，结果是否会发生？（R v White案）。
Legal causation requires that D's act was the substantial and operating cause of the result (R v Smith), and it need not be the sole cause. A new intervening act (novus actus interveniens) may break the chain of causation if it is 'free, voluntary and informed' (R v Kennedy).
法律因果关系要求被告的行为是结果的实质性且有效的原因（R v Smith案），且不必是唯一原因。如果出现“新的介入行为”，且该行为是“自由、自愿且知情的”，则可能打破因果关系链条（R v Kennedy案）。
Remember: fact first, then legal. For novus actus, think 'NVI': Natural events (exceptional), Victim's own acts (if unreasonable), and Interventions by third parties.
记忆：先事实，后法律。对于新的介入行为，围绕“NVI”记忆：自然灾害（异常情况）、被害人自身行为（若不合理的）、第三方介入。
3. Omissions | 不作为
Generally, there is no liability for failing to act. However, a duty to act can arise in six situations: statutory duty, duty under contract, duty by relationship, voluntary assumption of care, creating a dangerous situation, and public office duty.
一般而言，法律不要求人们对不作为承担责任。但在六种情形下会产生作为义务：法定义务、合同项下义务、因关系产生的义务、自愿承担照顾责任、制造危险情势、及公职人员义务。
Key cases: R v Pittwood (contract), R v Gibbins and Proctor (relationship/assumed duty), and R v Miller (creating dangerous situation). To memorise, use the acronym 'SCRAP-D': Statute, Contract, Relationship, Assumption, Public office, Danger created.
关键案例：R v Pittwood（合同义务）、R v Gibbins and Proctor（关系/承担义务）、R v Miller（制造危险情形）。可借助首字母缩略词“SCRAP-D”记忆：法规、合同、关系、承担、公职、制造危险。
4. Strict Liability | 严格责任
Strict liability offences require only actus reus; no mens rea is needed. They are commonly found in regulatory, public safety, and social concern areas, such as food hygiene (Callow v Tillstone), pollution (Alphacell v Woodward), and selling lottery tickets to minors (Harrow LBC v Shah).
严格责任犯罪仅要求犯罪行为，不要求犯罪意图。此类犯罪常见于监管、公共安全和社会关注领域，如食品卫生(Callow v Tillstone)、污染(Alphacell v Woodward)、向未成年人出售彩票(Harrow LBC v Shah)。
Courts presume mens rea is required unless the statute is regulatory, concerned with an issue of social safety, or carries only a moderate penalty. The defence of due diligence is often available. Memory: 'Strict means State Attaches No Mens' or think of 'No Mr Men’ for strict liability.
法院推定犯罪要求犯意，除非制定法是监管性的、涉及社会安全问题，或仅处以中等刑罚。通常可以提出“尽职调查”抗辩。记忆：“严格责任”即“国家（State）不要求（No）犯意（Mens）”。
5. Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person | 对人身的非致命犯罪
These are contained in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA 1861) and s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988. The ladder of offences ascends from least to most serious:
这些罪行规定在《1861年侵害人身罪法》和《1988年刑事司法法》第39条中。罪行的严重程度由轻到重递升：
- Assault (s.39 CJA): Causing V to apprehend immediate unlawful force; mens rea is intention or recklessness. No touching needed.
- 恐吓：使被害人感受到即将发生的非法暴力；犯意为故意或轻率。无需身体接触。
- Battery (s.39 CJA): Infliction of unlawful force; can be slight touching (Collins v Wilcock).
- 殴打：施加非法暴力；可以是最轻微的接触(Collins v Wilcock)。
- ABH (s.47 OAPA): Assault or battery occasioning actual bodily harm. Harm includes psychiatric injury (R v Chan-Fook).
- 实际身体伤害 (s.47)：恐吓或殴打导致实际身体伤害。伤害包括精神损伤(R v Chan-Fook)。
- GBH (s.20): Maliciously wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm; mens rea: intent or recklessness as to some harm.
- 严重身体伤害 (s.20)：恶意致伤或造成严重身体伤害；犯意：对造成某些伤害持有故意或轻率。
- GBH with intent (s.18): Wounding or causing GBH with intent to cause GBH or resist arrest. Maximum: life imprisonment.
- 有意造成严重身体伤害 (s.18)：有意造成GBH或抗拒逮捕而致伤。最高刑罚：终身监禁。
attery) → ABH → GBH s.20 → GBH s.18, each step requiring a higher level of harm or intent.
可视化梯子：恐吓(A) → 殴打(B) → 实际身体伤害 → 第20条严重身体伤害 → 第18条严重身体伤害，每升一级要求更严重的伤害或犯意。
6. Theft Act 1968: Theft, Robbery, Burglary | 1968年盗窃法：盗窃、抢劫、入室盗窃
Theft (s.1): 'dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.' Key elements: dishonesty (s.2, as per Ivey test), appropriation (s.3), property (s.4), belonging to another (s.5), intention to permanently deprive (s.6).
盗窃 (s.1)：“以永久剥夺他人财产为目的，不诚实地将属于他人的财产据为己有。”关键要素：不诚实（第2条，依Ivey标准判断）、侵占（第3条）、财产（第4条）、属于他人（第5条）、永久剥夺的意图（第6条）。
Robbery (s.8): Theft plus use or threat of force immediately before or at the time of stealing. Burglary (s.9): Entering a building as a trespasser with intent to commit theft, GBH, or criminal damage (s.9(1)(a)), or having entered as a trespasser, committing theft or GBH (s.9(1)(b)).
抢劫 (s.8)：盗窃加上在盗窃之前或当时使用或威胁使用暴力。入室盗窃 (s.9)：作为侵入者进入建筑物，意图实施盗窃、严重身体伤害或刑事损坏（s.9(1)(a)），或作为侵入者进入后实施盗窃或严重身体伤害（s.9(1)(b)）。
Memory: 'DAP-I' for theft (Dishonesty, Appropriation, Property, Intention). For robbery, think 'Theft + Force'. For burglary, remember 'Entry as Trespasser + Ulterior Offence'.
记忆：盗窃用“DAP-I”（不诚实、侵占、财产、意图）；抢劫想成“盗窃+暴力”；入室盗窃记“侵入进入+后续犯罪”。
7. Contract Formation: Offer, Acceptance, Consideration | 合同订立：要约、承诺、对价
A contract requires an offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention to create legal relations. An offer is a definite promise to be bound on terms, as in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, where the advert was a unilateral offer to the world.
合同要求要约、承诺、对价和建立法律关系的意图。要约是明确表示愿受条件约束的允诺，如Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co案，广告即为面向全世界的单方要约。
An invitation to treat (ITT) is merely a preliminary step inviting offers, e.g., goods on display (Pharmaceutical Society v Boots), or advertisements (Partridge v Crittenden). Acceptance must be a mirror image of the offer, communicated to the offeror (postal rule exception: Adams v Lindsell).
要约邀请(ITT)仅是邀请对方提出要约的准备步骤，例如陈列商品(Pharmaceutical Society v Boots)，或广告(Partridge v Crittenden)。承诺必须与要约完全一致，并传达给要约人（邮政规则例外：Adams v Lindsell）。
Consideration is the 'price of the promise', which must be sufficient but need not be adequate (Chappell v Nestle). Past consideration is not valid (Re McArdle), but existing public duty is not good consideration unless exceeded (Glasbrook v Glamorgan).
对价是“允诺的价格”，必须充分但无需对等(Chappell v Nestle)。过去的对价无效(Re McArdle)，履行原有的公法义务不构成对价，除非超越该义务范围(Glasbrook v Glamorgan)。
8. Intention to Create Legal Relations | 建立法律关系的意图
For an agreement to be legally binding, the parties must have intended to create legal relations. In social/domestic agreements, there is a presumption that there is no such intention (Balfour v Balfour), rebuttable by evidence of a contrary intention (Merritt v Merritt).
协议要具有法律约束力，当事人必须意图建立法律关系。在社会/家庭协议中，存在无法律意图的推定(Balfour v Balfour)，但可通过相反意图的证据推翻(Merritt v Merritt)。
are intended (Esso Petroleum v Customs and Excise), but this can be rebutted by an express 'honour clause' (Rose and Frank v Crompton). Remember: 'Domestic = No, Commercial = Yes' unless proved otherwise.
在商业协议中，推定具有法律意图(Esso Petroleum v Customs and Excise)，但可通过明确的“荣誉条款”推翻(Rose and Frank v Crompton)。记住：“家庭默认无，商业默认有”，除非另有证据。
9. Misrepresentation | 虚假陈述
A misrepresentation is a false statement of fact made before the contract that induces the party to enter the contract. It must be a statement of fact, not opinion (Bisset v Wilkinson) or future intention (Edgington v Fitzmaurice, where stated intention implied a misstatement of existing facts).
虚假陈述是指在合同订立前作出的、诱使对方签订合同的不实事实陈述。陈述必须是事实，而不是意见(Bisset v Wilkinson)或未来意图(Edgington v Fitzmaurice案中，声称的意图隐含对现有事实的虚假陈述)。
Categories: fraudulent (Derry v Peek – knowingly or recklessly false), negligent (s.2(1) Misrepresentation Act 1967), and innocent (s.2(2) MA 1967). Remedy depends on type: rescission available for all, damages vary. Memory: 'FNI' – Fraudulent, Negligent, Innocent.
分类：欺诈性（Derry v Peek – 明知或轻率地虚假）、过失性（1967年虚假陈述法第2(1)条）、和无辜（同法第2(2)条）。救济取决于类型：均可撤销合同，但损害赔偿金各异。记忆：“FNI”——欺诈、过失、无辜。
10. Negligence: Duty, Breach, Damage | 过失侵权：注意义务、违反、损害
To succeed in negligence, C must prove a duty of care, breach of that duty, and damage caused by the breach. The Caparo v Dickman three-stage test for duty: (1) reasonable foresight of harm, (2) proximity, (3) fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty.
在过失侵权诉讼中，原告须证明存在注意义务、义务的违反、以及由该违反导致的损害。Caparo v Dickman案确立的三步标准： (1) 损害的可合理预见性，(2) 近因性，(3) 施加义务公平、公正且合理。
Breach is assessed by the reasonable man standard (Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks): what would a reasonable person have done? Factors include likelihood of harm (Bolton v Stone), gravity of harm (Paris v Stepney BC), cost of precautions (Latimer v AEC), and social utility (Watt v Hertfordshire CC).
违反义务依理性人标准判断(Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks)：理性人会如何做？考量因素包括损害发生的可能性(Bolton v Stone)、损害的严重性(Paris v Stepney BC)、预防措施的成本(Latimer v AEC)和社会效用(Watt v Hertfordshire CC)。
Damage must be caused in fact (but for) and in law (remoteness: The Wagon Mound). Think 'D-B-C': Duty, Breach, Causation. And for factors influencing breach, remember 'Likelihood, Gravity, Cost, Utility'.
损害必须具有事实因果关系（若无则不）和法律因果关系（损害的远因性：The Wagon Mound案）。记住“D-B-C”：义务、违反、因果关系。考量违反因素时可借助“可能性、严重性、成本、效用”。
11. Occupiers' Liability | 占用人责任
The Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 governs liability to lawful visitors; the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 covers trespassers. Under the 1957 Act, an occupier owes a 'common duty of care' to ensure the visitor is reasonably safe (s.2(2)).
1957年占用人责任法调整对合法访客的责任；1984年法则涉及侵入者。依据1957年法，占用人负有“普通注意义务”，确保访客合理安全(s.2(2))。
An occupier is someone with control over the premises (Wheat v Lacon). Children require a higher degree of care (Glasgow Corp v Taylor). The 1984 Act requires occupier to be aware of the danger, know a trespasser might come into the vicinity, and the risk is one against which it is reasonable to offer some protection.
占用人是对场地具有控制力的人(Wheat v Lacon)。儿童需要更高程度的注意(Glasgow Corp v Taylor)。1984年法要求占用人意识到危险、知道侵入者可能接近、且该危险属于应当合理提供保护的风险。
Quick recall: '1957 = Lawful visitors, 1984 = Trespassers'. Link year digits to level of protection: visitors get 'full' duty, trespassers get 'limited' duty.
速记：“1957 = 合法访客，1984 = 侵入者”。将年份与保护级别挂钩：访客获“完全”注意义务，侵入者仅获“有限”义务。
12. General Defences in Criminal Law | 刑法中的一般抗辩
Defences can negate liability even where actus reus and mens rea are proved. Key defences include:
即使犯罪行为和犯意成立，抗辩事由仍可免除责任。主要抗辩包括：
- Consent: Valid in assault/battery situations where V freely consents (R v Brown for sadomasochistic injuries not in public interest). In sport, implied consent to contact within the rules (R v Barnes).
- 同意： 在被害人自由同意的恐吓/殴打情形中有效（R v Brown案中，为施虐/受虐目的造成伤害不符合公共利益）。体育活动中，凡在规则范围内的接触均有默示同意(R v Barnes)。
- Self-defence / prevention of crime: Use of force must be necessary and reasonable in the circumstances as D honestly believed them to be (s.76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008).
- 自卫/防止犯罪： 使用武力必须在被告人真诚相信的情境下是必要且合理的（2008年刑事司法与移民法第76条）。
- Intoxication: Voluntary intoxication is no defence to basic intent crimes (DPP v Majewski), but may be relevant to specific intent crimes if it negates mens rea. Involuntary intoxication may be a complete defence.
- 醉酒： 自愿醉酒对基本意图犯罪不构成抗辩(DPP v Majewski)，但在特定意图犯罪中若否定犯意，则可成立。非自愿醉酒可能构成完整抗辩。
- Insanity and Automatism: Insanity (M'Naghten Rules) requires a defect of reason from disease of the mind, leading to D not knowing the nature of the act or that it was wrong. Automatism is an external factor causing involuntary action (Hill v Baxter).
- 精神失常与自动症： 精神失常(M'Naghten规则)要求因精神疾病导致理性缺陷，从而不知行为性质或错误性。自动症是由外部因素导致的非自愿行为(Hill v Baxter)。
Memory acronym for major defences: 'C-SIAM' – Consent, Self-defence, Intoxication, Automatism, Mental (insanity).
主要抗辩事由首字母记忆：“C-SIAM”——同意、自卫、醉酒、自动症、精神（失常）。
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