Year 13 AQA Law: Legal Terminology Quick Memorisation Guide | AQA法律A2核心术语速记指南

📚 Year 13 AQA Law: Legal Terminology Quick Memorisation Guide | AQA法律A2核心术语速记指南

Mastering precise legal vocabulary is the hidden key to high marks in Year 13 AQA Law. Whether you are unpacking the actus reus of murder or analysing the three-stage Caparo test in tort, using the correct terms with confidence shows the examiner you truly understand the law. This guide breaks down essential terminology from criminal law, tort, human rights and the English legal system, pairing each term with a memorable mnemonic or mental shortcut. Every definition is presented first in English and then in Chinese to reinforce bilingual understanding and cater to all learning preferences.

掌握精确的法律词汇是 Year 13 AQA 法律考试拿下高分的关键。当你拆解谋杀的犯罪行为，或分析侵权法中的 Caparo 三阶段检验时，自信地使用正确术语能向考官展示你对法律的真正理解。本指南分解了刑法、侵权法、人权法以及英国法律制度中的必备术语，并为每个术语搭配了易记的口诀或思维捷径。每条定义均先以英文呈现，再以中文对照，旨在强化双语理解并适应所有学习风格。

---

1. Why Terminology Matters in AQA Law | 为什么术语在 AQA 法律中如此重要

In AQA A-level Law, you are not just describing scenarios; you are applying black-letter legal rules. Terms like 'mens rea', 'breach of duty' or 'proportionality' carry precise technical meanings that trigger specific chains of reasoning. Using these terms accurately saves you time, structures your analysis and prevents you from drifting into vague commentary. Think of each term as a trigger word that instantly tells the examiner where your argument is heading.

在 AQA A-level 法律考试中，你并非只是在描述场景，而是在适用严格的法律规则。像“mens rea（犯罪意图）”、“breach of duty（违反义务）”或“proportionality（相称性）”这类术语承载着精确的技术含义，能引发一系列特定的推理链条。准确使用这些术语不仅能节省时间，还能结构化你的分析，并防止你陷入模糊的评论。不妨把每个术语想象成一个触发词，它瞬间告诉考官你的论证方向。

Memory experts recommend three core techniques for legal vocabulary: the 'keyword method' (linking a term to an image), initialism (creating acronyms like DBD for Duty-Breach-Damage) and the 'story method' (embedding the term in a short, bizarre narrative). Throughout this guide, we will demonstrate these techniques so you can memorise and retrieve terms on exam day.

记忆专家推荐三种攻克法律词汇的核心技巧：“关键词法”（将术语与图像挂钩）、首字母缩写法（如用 DBD 代表 Duty-Breach-Damage）以及“故事法”（将术语嵌入一个简短离奇的叙事中）。本文通篇将演示这些技巧，帮助你在考试当天顺利提取和运用术语。

---

2. Criminal Law: Actus Reus and Mens Rea Foundations | 刑法：犯罪行为与犯罪意图的基础

Actus Reus (Guilty Act) – This refers to the external physical element of a crime. It can consist of a positive act, an omission (where the defendant has a legal duty to act), or a prohibited state of affairs. For example, in murder the actus reus is the unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the King's peace.

犯罪行为 (Actus Reus) – 指犯罪的外部客观要素。它可表现为积极作为、不作为（当被告负有法定作为义务时）或某种被禁止的状态。例如，在谋杀罪中，犯罪行为便是在国王治安下非法杀害一个有理性的人。

Mnemonic: Imagine 'Actus' sounds like 'action' and visualise a person throwing a punch – that physical movement is the guilty act.

记忆法：想象“Actus”听起来像“action（行动）”，并视化一个人挥拳——那个身体动作就是犯罪行为。

Omission – An omission is a failure to act, but it only results in criminal liability if the defendant was under a legal duty to act. The key duty situations arise from statute (e.g., Road Traffic Act), special relationships (parent-child), contractual obligations (R v Pittwood), voluntary assumption of responsibility (R v Stone & Dobinson) and where the defendant created a dangerous situation (R v Miller).

不作为 (Omission) – 不作为即未采取行动，但只有当被告负有法定作为义务时才会产生刑事责任。主要的义务来源包括：制定法规定（如《道路交通法》）、特殊关系（亲子）、合同义务（R v Pittwood 案）、自愿承担照料责任（R v Stone & Dobinson 案）以及被告制造了危险情况（R v Miller 案）。

Mnemonic: Think of the letter 'O' as a zero – zero action – but then ask: was there a duty? Use the story of the squatter who started a fire and simply moved to the next room; his failure to act was criminal because he created the danger.

记忆法：将字母“O”视为零——即零行动——然后追问：是否存在义务？回想那个躺在床上吸烟引发火灾的擅自占住者，他只是挪到隔壁房间却未灭火；由于他制造了危险，其不作为构成犯罪。

Causation – To establish actus reus, the prosecution must prove that the defendant's conduct was both the factual and legal cause of the prohibited result. Factual causation uses the 'but for' test (R v White). Legal causation requires that the defendant's act was the substantial and operative cause (R v Smith) and that any intervening act (novus actus interveniens) did not break the chain of causation. Acts of a third party, the victim's own actions or a natural event must be foreseeable to be truly intervening (R v Roberts, R v Williams & Davis).

因果关系 (Causation) – 为成立犯罪行为，控方必须证明被告的行为既是禁止结果的事实原因，也是法律原因。事实因果关系采用“若无则不”检验（R v White 案）。法律因果关系则要求被告的行为是实质且有效的原因（R v Smith 案），并且任何介入行为（新行为介入）未切断因果链。第三方行为、受害人自身行为或自然事件必须是可预见的，才可能被视为真正的介入因素（R v Roberts 案, R v Williams & Davis 案）。

Mnemonic: Link 'but for' to a 'butterfly' – without the butterfly flapping its wings, the result would not have happened. For legal causation, picture a 'substantial brick' that stays operative in the wall of events.

记忆法：将“but for”联想为“butterfly（蝴蝶）”——若没有那只蝴蝶扇动翅膀，结果便不会发生。至于法律因果关系，不妨想象一块“实质的砖”，这块砖始终嵌在事件之墙中发挥作用。

Mens Rea (Guilty Mind) – The mental element of an offence. The main types of mens rea are intention (direct intent where it is the defendant's aim or purpose, and oblique intent where the result is a virtually certain consequence of the defendant's actions and the defendant foresaw it as such – R v Woollin) and recklessness (the defendant foresaw the risk of the prohibited consequence and went on to take it anyway, judged subjectively – R v Cunningham).

犯罪意图 (Mens Rea) – 犯罪的内心要素。犯罪意图的主要类型包括故意（直接故意指结果是被告的目的或目标；间接故意指结果是被告行为几乎必然的后果且被告已经预见其为必然——R v Woollin 案）以及轻率（被告预见到禁止后果的风险却仍然冒险行事，以主观标准判断——R v Cunningham 案）。

Mnemonic: 'Mens' sounds like 'minds' – guilty mind. For oblique intent, imagine a person throwing a stone into a crowd; he doesn't aim at anyone but knows hitting someone is virtually certain.

记忆法：“Mens”听起来像“minds（心灵）”——即有罪的心灵。对于间接故意，想象一个人朝人群扔石头；他并未瞄准任何人，却明知几乎必然击中某人。

Transferred Malice – If a defendant intends to commit a crime against one person but accidentally harms another, the mens rea can be transferred to the actual victim, provided the actus reus is of the same type of crime (R v Latimer). This doctrine cannot transfer between different crimes (R v Pembliton).

恶意转移 (Transferred Malice) – 若被告意图对某人实施犯罪，却不慎伤害了另一人，只要犯罪行为属于同一类犯罪，犯罪意图便可转移至实际受害人（R v Latimer 案）。该原则不能在不同类型犯罪之间转移（R v Pembliton 案）。

Mnemonic: Visualise malice as a bouncing ball – you throw it at A but it bounces and hits B; the malice still sticks.

记忆法：将恶意想象为一颗弹力球——你朝 A 扔去，它却弹起来击中了 B；恶意依然附着其上。

Strict Liability – An offence where no mens rea is required for at least one element of the actus reus. These offences are usually regulatory in nature, covering matters such as food hygiene, pollution or underage sales. The leading case is Callow v Tillstone where a butcher was convicted of selling unfit meat even though he took reasonable care.

严格责任 (Strict Liability) – 指一类犯罪，对于其犯罪行为的至少某一部分不要求证明犯罪意图。这类罪行通常具有管理性质，涉及食品卫生、污染或向未成年人销售等领域。典型案例是 Callow v Tillstone 案，屠夫尽管已尽合理注意义务仍因售卖不适宜食用的肉而被定罪。

Mnemonic: Think 'strict' as in 'strict teacher' – no excuses allowed, the act alone brings liability.

记忆法：将“strict”联想为“严厉的老师”——不容任何借口，单凭行为即产生责任。

---

广告 / Sponsored

3. Criminal Law: Homicide and Property Offences Terminology | 刑法：杀人罪与财产犯罪术语

Murder – The classic definition is 'the unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the King's peace with malice aforethought'. Malice aforethought means an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (R v Vickers). A foetus is not a reasonable person in being (Attorney-General's Reference No 3 of 1994).

谋杀 (Murder) – 经典定义为“在国王治安下，怀有恶意预谋非法杀害一个有理性的人”。恶意预谋是指意图杀害或造成严重身体伤害（R v Vickers 案）。胎儿并非有理性的人（1994年第3号总检察长参考案）。

Mnemonic: Use the acronym UKIP? No – 'K UK GP' – Killing Unlawfully under King's peace with Grievous harm Purpose. Or simply remember 'Intention to kill or GBH'.

记忆法：利用口诀“非法杀人加严重伤害意图”，即意图杀害或致人重伤。

Voluntary Manslaughter – Loss of Control – This partial defence to murder replaces the old provocation. Under s.54 Coroners and Justice Act 2009, the defendant must have lost self-control as a result of a qualifying trigger (fear of serious violence or things said/done which were of an extremely grave character and caused a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged) and a person of the defendant's sex and age with normal tolerance and self-restraint might have reacted similarly.

自愿过失杀人——失控 (Loss of Control) – 该谋杀部分抗辩取代了旧时的挑衅抗辩。根据《2009年验尸官与司法法》第54条，被告必须因符合条件的触发因素而失去自我控制（对严重暴力的恐惧，或者被说/做的事件具有极为严重的性质并引起了被严重冤枉的合理感受），且一个与被告同性别、同龄、具有正常容忍和自控力的人可能作出相似反应。

Mnemonic: Picture a 'control knob' being twisted off by an external trigger; then imagine a 'normal person thermostat' measuring the reaction.

记忆法：想象外部触发因素拧掉了“控制旋钮”；再想象一个“正常人恒温器”测量反应是否合格。

Involuntary Manslaughter – Unlawful Act Manslaughter – This arises when the defendant commits a criminal act that carries an objective risk of some physical harm, the act causes death, and a reasonable person would have foreseen that risk (DPP v Newbury). The base crime must be an act, not an omission, and must be intrinsically unlawful.

非自愿过失杀人——非法行为过失杀人 (UAM) – 当被告实施犯罪行为，该行为客观上带有某种身体伤害的风险，行为导致了死亡，且一个理性人会预见到该风险时，便成立此罪（DPP v Newbury 案）。基础犯罪必须是作为而非不作为，且本身具有违法性。

Mnemonic: UAM – 'Unlawful Act Means death'. Think of a scary act like throwing a heavy object off a balcony; a reasonable person sees the risk of harm.

记忆法：UAM——非法行为意味着死亡。设想一个危险动作，比如从阳台扔重物；理性人能看到伤害风险。

Theft – Under s.1 Theft Act 1968, a person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. Key elements: appropriation (s.3, assuming any of the rights of owner – R v Morris), property (s.4), belonging to another (s.5), dishonesty (s.2 and Ivey test – R v Barton), intention permanently to deprive (s.6).

盗窃 (Theft) – 根据《1968年盗窃法》第1条，若一个人不诚实地挪用属于他人的财产，并具有永久剥夺他人财产的意图，即犯盗窃罪。核心要件：挪用（第3条，行使所有权人任何权利——R v Morris 案）、财产（第4条）、属于他人（第5条）、不诚实（第2条及 Ivey 检验——R v Barton 案）、永久剥夺意图（第6条）。

Mnemonic: Take the initials DAPPI – Dishonesty, Appropriation, Property, Belonging to another, Intention permanently to deprive. Remember 'DAPPI the dog steals bones'.

记忆法：取首字母 DAPPI——不诚实、挪用、财产、属于他人、永久剥夺意图。记住“DAPPI 这只狗偷骨头”。

Robbery – Under s.8 Theft Act, robbery is theft aggravated by the use or threat of force immediately before or at the time of stealing, and in order to steal. The force must be used on any person, not necessarily the victim of theft, and the threat must be of force.

抢劫 (Robbery) – 根据《盗窃法》第8条，抢劫是利用暴力或暴力威胁加重构成的盗窃，暴力须在盗窃即将发生或当时实施，并为完成盗窃目的。暴力可针对任何人，不一定是被窃者，且威胁必须是暴力威胁。

Mnemonic: 'Rob' = Theft + Force. Think of a robber grabbing a bag and pushing the victim.

记忆法：“Rob” = 盗窃 + 暴力。想象劫匪抢包并推搡受害人。

Burglary – Under s.9 Theft Act, a person commits burglary by entering a building or part of a building as a trespasser with intent to commit theft, GBH or criminal damage (s.9(1)(a)), or having entered as a trespasser, steals or inflicts GBH (s.9(1)(b)). Entry requires the defendant to be 'effective' (R v Brown).

入室行窃 (Burglary) – 根据《盗窃法》第9条，一个人以侵入者身份进入建筑物或建筑物的一部分，并意图实施盗窃、严重身体伤害或刑事毁坏，即构成入室行窃（第9(1)(a)条）；或者以侵入者身份进入后，实施盗窃或造成严重身体伤害（第9(1)(b)条）。进入须为“有效”进入（R v Brown 案）。

Mnemonic: 'Burglar enters building for bad business

Published by TutorHao | Year 13 法律 Revision Series | aleveler.com

更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）