📚 IGCSE Edexcel Law: Quick Reference Formula & Principles Handbook | IGCSE Edexcel 法律：公式定理速查手册
This handbook provides a concise collection of essential legal 'formulas' – the core principles, definitions, and tests you need to apply in IGCSE Edexcel Law. Instead of mathematical equations, you will master structured reasoning frameworks for topics such as criminal liability, tort of negligence, contract formation, and human rights. Each entry follows a clear logic: identifying the legal rule, its elements, and how to apply it to scenario-based questions.
本手册汇编了 IGCSE Edexcel 法律课程中必不可少的法律“公式”——即你需要应用的核心原则、定义和检验标准。与数学方程不同，你将掌握结构化的推理框架，涵盖刑事责任、过失侵权、合同成立以及人权等主题。每一条目都遵循清晰的逻辑：明确法律规则、拆解构成要素，并说明如何将其应用于情景分析题。
1. Actus Reus + Mens Rea = Criminal Liability | 犯罪行为 + 犯罪意图 = 刑事责任
The basic formula for most crimes: Actus Reus (guilty act) + Mens Rea (guilty mind) = Crime (with no valid defence). Actus reus can include an act, omission, or a state of affairs. Mens rea refers to the mental element, which varies by offence – intention, recklessness, or sometimes negligence.
大多数犯罪的基本公式：犯罪行为 + 犯罪意图 = 犯罪（且无有效抗辩）。犯罪行为可以包括作为、不作为或特定状态。犯罪意图指心理要素，因罪名不同而有所区别——可能是故意、轻率，或某些情况下的过失。
- Actus Reus (AR): Must be voluntary. In an omission, a duty must exist (e.g., contractual duty, statutory duty, voluntary assumption of responsibility).
- 犯罪行为：必须是自愿的。在不作为案件中，必须存在不作为的义务（例如合同义务、法定义务、自愿承担责任）。
- Mens Rea (MR): Intention (direct or oblique) means it was the defendant's aim or purpose. Recklessness (subjective Cunningham test) means the defendant foresaw the risk and went on to take it unreasonably.
- 犯罪意图：故意（直接或间接）是指被告的目的或意图。轻率（主观 Cunningham 检验标准）是指被告预见到风险但仍不合理地冒险行事。
Causation in result crimes: Factual causation (but-for test) and legal causation (operative and substantial cause). An intervening act (novus actus interveniens) can break the chain of causation if it is unforeseeable.
结果犯的因果关系：事实因果关系（“若无则不”检验）和法律因果关系（起效且实质的原因）。如果出现不可预见的介入行为，则可能中断因果关系链条。
2. The 'Neighbour Principle' of Negligence | 过失侵权的“邻人原则”
Negligence formula: Duty of Care + Breach of that Duty + Damage caused by the breach = Negligence. The duty of care is established by the 'neighbour principle' from Donoghue v Stevenson: You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.
过失侵权公式：注意义务 + 违反该义务 + 因违反义务造成的损害 = 过失侵权。注意义务由 Donoghue v Stevenson 案确立的“邻人原则”决定：你必须采取合理谨慎，避免那些合理可预见会伤害邻人的作为或不作为。
- Neighbour: Persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation.
- 邻人：那些受到我的行为如此紧密和直接影响，以至于我应当合理地将他们纳入考虑范围的人。
- Caparo v Dickman three-stage test: (1) Was the damage reasonably foreseeable? (2) Was there a relationship of proximity? (3) Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty?
- Caparo v Dickman 三阶段检验：（1）损害是否可合理预见？（2）当事人之间是否存在邻近关系？（3）施加义务是否公平、公正且合理？
Breach of duty: judged by the standard of the reasonable man (Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks). The reasonable man is objective, not subjective. Factors include likelihood of harm, seriousness of harm, cost of precautions, and social utility of the defendant's conduct.
违反义务：以合理人标准判断。合理人是客观的，而非主观。考虑因素包括损害发生的可能性、损害的严重程度、采取预防措施的成本，以及被告行为的社会效用。
3. Contract Formation: Offer + Acceptance + Consideration + Intention = Contract | 合同成立：要约 + 承诺 + 对价 + 意向 = 合同
A binding contract is formed when an offer is accepted, supported by consideration, and the parties intend to create legal relations. The formula: ge Acceptance + Consideration + Intention to create legal relations = Enforceable Contract.
一项具有约束力的合同在要约被承诺、有对价支持且当事人有意创建法律关系时成立。公式：有效要约 + 镜像承诺 + 对价 + 创建法律关系的意向 = 可执行的合同。
- Offer: A clear statement of terms on which the offeror is willing to be bound (e.g., Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co). Distinguished from an invitation to treat (e.g., goods on display, Fisher v Bell).
- 要约：要约人明确表示愿意受其约束的条款（例如 Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co 案）。区别于要约邀请（例如商店陈列商品，Fisher v Bell 案）。
- Acceptance: Must be unconditional and communicated (postal rule exception: acceptance by post takes effect on posting, Adams v Lindsell). Must correspond exactly with the offer.
- 承诺：必须无条件且被传达（邮寄规则例外：邮寄承诺在投递时生效，Adams v Lindsell案）。必须与要约内容完全一致。
- Consideration: Something of value in the eye of the law, moving from the promisee (Currie v Misa). Must be sufficient but need not be adequate. Past consideration is not valid.
- 对价：法律认可的有价值之物，由受诺人提供。对价必须充分但不必对等。过去对价无效。
- Intention: Presumed in commercial agreements; presumed absent in social/domestic agreements (Balfour v Balfour), but the presumption can be rebutted.
- 意向：商业协议中推定存在；社交/家庭协议中推定不存在，但可被反证推翻。
4. Strict Liability: AR without MR = Offence | 严格责任：仅有犯罪行为而无犯罪意图 = 犯罪
Strict liability formula: Actus Reus alone (no mens rea required for at least one element) = Guilty. These are regulatory offences where the prosecution does not need to prove fault. The defence of due diligence may apply if the defendant took all reasonable precautions.
严格责任公式：仅需犯罪行为（至少一个要素不要求犯罪意图）= 有罪。这些是监管类犯罪，控方无需证明过错。如果被告已采取所有合理预防措施，可运用尽职抗辩。
- Examples: Selling alcohol to a minor, speeding, health and safety offences. Look for statutory wording indicating strict liability: no words like 'knowingly' or 'willfully' covering the element.
- 例子：向未成年人售酒、超速、健康安全犯罪。寻找表明严格责任的法规措辞：不包含“明知”或“故意”等涵盖该要素的词语。
- Presumption of mens rea: Courts start by presuming MR is required for criminal offences (Sweet v Parsley). This presumption can be displaced by the nature of the offence and the need for social protection.
- 犯罪意图推定：法院起初推定刑事犯罪要求犯罪意图。若犯罪性质和社会保护需要，可推翻该推定。
5. Theft: Dishonest Appropriation of Property Belonging to Another with Intention to Permanently Deprive | 盗窃：不诚实地占有他人财产并意图永久剥夺
Theft formula under the Theft Act 1968: + Property + Belonging to another + Dishonesty + Intention to permanently deprive = Theft. All five elements must be present simultaneously.
根据《1968年盗窃法》，盗窃公式：占有 + 财产 + 属于他人 + 不诚实 + 永久剥夺意图 = 盗窃。五个要素必须同时具备。
- Appropriation (s.3): Any assumption of the rights of an owner. Can include later assumption if property was obtained innocently.
- 占有：对物主权利的任何行使。若最初善意取得财产后行使物主权利，也可构成。
- Property (s.4): Includes money, real and personal property, things in action, and other intangible property. Excludes land (generally) and wild plants unless for commercial purpose.
- 财产：包括货币、不动产和动产、诉讼中的物权及其他无形财产。通常不包括土地和野生植物，但商业目的除外。
- Belonging to another (s.5): Owner is anyone who has possession or control, or a proprietary interest (including trustees).
- 属于他人：拥有占有权、控制权或所有权利益的人。
- Dishonesty (s.2 and Ghosh test/Ivey test): The current test is from Ivey v Genting: was the defendant's conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people? The old Ghosh test (both objective and subjective) has been replaced.
- 不诚实：现行检验标准来自 Ivey v Genting 案：根据普通正直人士的标准，被告行为是否不诚实？旧有的 Ghosh 检验（兼具客观和主观）已被取代。
- Intention to permanently deprive (s.6): Treating the property as one's own to dispose of regardless of the owner’s rights; borrowing may suffice if the property’s 'goodness, virtue, and practical value' is gone.
- 永久剥夺意图：将财产当作自己所有而不顾物主权利进行处置；若借用导致财产的“全部实质价值”丧失，也可构成。
6. Murder: Unlawful Killing with Malice Aforethought | 谋杀罪：非法杀戮并具有恶意预谋
Murder formula: Unlawful killing + Reasonable person in being + Under the King's peace + With malice aforethought (intention to kill or cause GBH) = Murder. The mens rea is an intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm (GBH) (Vickers).
谋杀罪公式：非法杀戮 + 被杀害者为有理性的人 + 在女王/国王治下 + 具有恶意预谋（意图杀人或造成严重身体伤害）= 谋杀。犯罪意图是意图杀人或造成严重身体伤害。
- Reasonable person: A human being who is not brain dead. A foetus is not a reasonable person in being.
- 有理性的人：未脑死亡的人类。胎儿不算。
- Malice aforethought: Does not require ill-will. Intention can be direct (aim/purpose) or oblique (virtual certainty test, R v Woollin).
- 恶意预谋：不要求怀有恶意。故意可以是直接故意，也可以是间接故意。
- Voluntary manslaughter: Partial defences reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter: Diminished responsibility (s.2 Homicide Act 1957), Loss of control (s.54-55 Coroners and Justice Act 2009), and Suicide pact (s.4 Homicide Act 1957).
- 自愿非预谋杀人罪：部分抗辩可将谋杀减轻为自愿非预谋杀人：责任能力减弱、失控、自杀协定。
7. Involuntary Manslaughter: Unlawful Act or Gross Negligence | 非自愿非预谋杀人：非法行为或重大过失
Involuntary manslaughter formula – two forms: Unlawful act manslaughter would a sober and reasonable person recognise the risk of some harm) + Caused death = UAM. Gross negligence manslaughter ty of : Duty of care + Breach in a truly exceptionally bad way + Risk of death + Caused death = GNM.
非自愿非预谋杀人公式——两种形式：非法行为非预谋杀人：非法行为 + 危险行为（客观检验：清醒合理之人是否会意识到造成某种伤害的风险）+ 导致死亡 = 非法行为非预谋杀人。重大过失非预谋杀人：注意义务 + 以极端恶劣的方式违反义务 + 导致死亡的风险 + 引起死亡 = 重大过失非预谋杀人。
- Unlawful act: Must be a crime (civil wrong not enough), e.g., assault or battery (R v Church). The act must be the factual and legal cause of death.
- 非法行为：必须是刑事犯罪（民事错误不够），例如殴打罪。该行为必须是死亡的事实及法律原因。
- Gross negligence: The breach goes beyond mere carelessness and amounts to criminal disregard for life (R v Adomako). The defendant's conduct must be so bad as to justify a criminal conviction.
- 重大过失：违反义务不仅仅是疏忽，达到了对生命的刑事漠视程度。被告行为必须恶劣到足以处以刑事定罪。
8. Non-Fatal Offences: Assault, Battery, ABH, GBH | 非致命罪：威胁侵害、侵害、实际身体伤害、严重身体伤害
The 'ladder' of non-fatal offences under Offences Against the Person Act 1861: Assault (causing victim to apprehend immediate unlawful force) + Battery (application of unlawful force) + Assault occasioning ABH (assault/battery causing actual bodily harm) + Malicious wounding/inflicting GBH (s.20) and Wounding/causing GBH with intent (s.18).
根据《1861年侵害人身罪法》的非致命罪“阶梯”：威胁侵害（使被害人担忧即将发生非法暴力）+ 侵害（实施非法暴力）+ 侵害造成实际身体伤害 + 恶意伤人/造成严重身体伤害（第20条）和故意伤人/造成严重身体伤害（第18条）。
| Offence | Actus Reus | Mens Rea |
| Assault | Causing victim to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence | Intention or recklessness as to causing apprehension |
| Battery | Infliction of unlawful personal force | Intention or recklessness as to the application of force |
| s.47 ABH | Assault or battery causing actual bodily harm (any injury calculated to interfere with health or comfort) | Intent or recklessness as to the initial assault/battery; no need to foresee the harm (R v Savage, Parmenter) |
| s.20 GBH | Maliciously wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm | 'Malice' means intention or recklessness as to some harm, not necessarily GBH |
| s.18 GBH with intent | Wounding or causing grievous bodily harm | Specific intent to cause GBH or intent to resist/prevent lawful arrest |
The ladder helps identify the correct charge based on the harm caused and the defendant's mental state.
这个阶梯有助于根据造成的伤害和被告的心理状态确定正确的指控。
9. Defences: Self-Defence, Intoxication, Necessity, Duress | 抗辩：正当防卫、醉酒、紧急避险、胁迫
Defences can reduce or eliminate liability. The formula for a complete defence: All elements of the defence made out = No conviction. Different defences have different rules and burdens.
抗辩可以减轻或免除责任。完全抗辩的公式：满足抗辩的所有要素 = 不定罪。不同的抗辩有不同的规则和举证责任。
- Self-defence / Prevention of crime: Defendant honestly believed use of force was necessary, and the force used was reasonable in the circumstances as he believed them to be (s.76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008; R v Owino). The householder can use disproportionate force, but not grossly disproportionate.
- 正当防卫 / 阻止犯罪：被告真诚地相信当时有必要使用武力，且根据他相信的情况使用武力是合理的。户主可使用不相称的武力，但不能严重不相称。
- Intoxication: Voluntary intoxication is no defence to a basic intent crime (DPP v Majewski). It may be a defence to specific intent crimes if it negates the specific intent. Involuntary intoxication may be a defence to any crime if no mens rea was formed.
- 醉酒：自愿醉酒不构成基本意图犯罪的抗辩。若直接否定特定意图，可构成特定意图犯罪的抗辩。非自愿醉酒若未能形成犯罪意图，可作为任何犯罪的抗辩。
- Necessity: Very limited, usually applied in medical cases. The three-part test: act must be done to avoid inevitable and irreparable evil; no more harm done than reasonably necessary; and the evil inflicted must not be disproportionate to the evil avoided (Re A (Children) – conjoined twins).
- 紧急避险：适用范围极窄，通常用于医疗案件。三部分检验：行为必须是为避免必然且不可弥补的损害；造成的损害不得超过合理所需；造成的损害不得超过所避免的损害。
- Duress: The defendant was forced to commit a crime under threat of death or serious injury; threat must be imminent or operative; a sober person of reasonable firmness sharing the defendant's characteristics would have responded similarly (R v Graham). Not available for murder or attempted murder (R v Gotts).
- 胁迫：被告在死亡或严重伤害的威胁下被迫犯罪；威胁必须是即时的或有效力的；与被告具有相同特征的、具有合理意志坚定程度的清醒之人也会有同样的反应。不得用于谋杀或谋杀未遂。
10. Human Rights: Proportionality and Balancing of Rights | 人权：相称性与权利平衡
Under the Human Rights Act 1998, qualified rights (e.g., Article 8 – respect for private life, Article 10 – freedom of expression, Article 11 – assembly) can be restricted if the interference is prescribed by law, pursues a legitimate aim, and is necessary in a democratic society (proportionate). The formula: ight + Prescribed by law + Legitimate aim + Necessary & proportionate = Lawful restriction.
根据《1998年人权法》，合格权利可被限制，只要干预是依法规定的、追求合法目的，并且是民主社会所必需的（相称的）。公式：对公约权利的干预 + 依法规定 + 合法目的 + 必需且相称 = 合法限制。
- Legitimate aims: Include national security, public safety, protection of health or morals, protection of rights and freedoms of others. The state must show the measure is no more than necessary.
- 合法目的：包括国家安全、公共安全、保护健康或道德、保护他人权利与自由。国家必须证明该措施未超过必要限度。
- Proportionality test: The measure must be rationally connected to the aim; must impair the right no more than necessary; and the benefits must outweigh the harm to the right (de Freitas v Permanent Secretary).
- 相称性检验：措施必须与目的有理性联系；对权利的损害必须不超过必要范围；且收益必须大于对权利的损害。
- Absolute rights: Article 2 (right to life – limited exceptions), Article 3 (prohibition of torture), Article 4 (slavery) are absolute; no derogation allowed. The test: state must also investigate deaths and ill-treatment.
- 绝对权利：第2条（生命权——有限例外）、第3条（禁止酷刑）、第4条（奴役）是绝对的，不容克减。国家还须调查死亡和虐待事件。
11. Statutory Interpretation: Literal + Golden + Mischief + Purposive | 成文法解释：文义规则、黄金规则、填补漏洞规则、目的解释
Judges apply rules of interpretation to find Parliament's intention. There is no single 'formula', but a sequential approach: Literal rule (give words their plain meaning) → If absurdity, Golden rule (narrow: choose between possible meanings; wide: modify to avoid absurdity) → Mischief rule (Heydon' se: what was the common law before, what was the defect, what remedy did Parliament intend?) → Purposive approach (interpret in light of the purpose of the Act, wider than mischief).
法官运用解释规则来探寻议会的意图。没有单一“公式”，但可遵循顺序：文义规则（赋予词语通常含义）→ 若导致荒谬，用黄金规则（狭义：在可能的含义中选择；广义：修改含义以避免荒谬）→ 填补漏洞规则（考察普通法之前的状况、缺陷何在、议会意图提供何种补救）→ 目的解释（根据法案目的进行解释，比填补漏洞规则更宽泛）。
- Intrinsic aids: The Act itself – long title, preamble, definitions section. Extrinsic aids: Dictionaries, earlier Acts, Hansard (Pepper v Hart), Law Commission reports.
- 内部辅助资料：法案本身——长标题、序言、定义条款。外部辅助资料：字典、先前法案、议会辩论记录、法律委员会报告。
- Rules of language: Ejusdem generis – general words following specific words are limited to the same class. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius – express mention of one thing implies exclusion of another. Noscitur a sociis – a word is known by the company it keeps.
- 语言规则：同类规则——列举特定事项后出现的概括性词语限于同类事物。明示其一即排除其他——明确提及一事意味着排除其他。词语通过上下文理解——词语由其相邻词语的含义确定。
12. Tort of Breach of Statutory Duty: Statute + Scope + Breach + Damage = Liability | 违反法定义务侵权：法规 + 适用范围 + 违反 + 损害 = 责任
This tort provides compensation for harm suffered due to breach of a duty imposed by statute. The formula: ithin that class + The duty was breached + The breach caused the damage = Successful claim. Unlike pure negligence, the duty is automatically determined by the statute.
该侵权为因违反法规义务而遭受的损害提供赔偿。公式：法规规定了保护特定群体的义务 + 原告属于该群体 + 义务被违反 + 违反导致损害 = 成功索赔。与纯粹过失不同，义务由法规自动确定。
- Elements: (1) The statute must be intended to give a civil remedy – some statutes provide only criminal penalties. (2) The claimant must show that the harm suffered is of a type the statute was designed to prevent. (3) The standard of liability may be strict or fault-based depending on the wording of the statute.
- 要素：法规必须意在提供民事救济——有些法规只规定刑事处罚。原告必须证明遭受的损害是法规所旨在预防的那一类。责任标准可能是严格的，也可能以过错为基础，取决于法规措辞。
This area often appears in questions on health and safety at work, and distinguishes from common law negligence. Use this structure when a problem scenario mentions a specific statutory provision governing conduct.
这一领域常出现在工作健康与安全相关的问题中，并与普通法过失相区别。当情景案例提及规范行为的特定法规条款时，使用这一结构。
Published by TutorHao | IGCSE Edexcel 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