📚 GCSE WJEC Law: Quick Reference Guide to Formulas and Maxims | GCSE WJEC 法律：公式定理速查手册
In WJEC GCSE Law, mastering the subject often means grasping structured legal 'formulas' — logical sequences of elements that define offences, defences, and civil liability. This guide compiles the essential rules, tests, and maxims drawn from criminal law, tort, and the legal system, presenting each as a precise formula you can apply to scenario questions. Use it for quick revision to ensure you never miss a required element.
在 WJEC GCSE 法律课程中，掌握这门学科通常意味着理解结构化的法律“公式”——定义犯罪、抗辩和民事责任的逻辑要素序列。本指南汇集了来自刑法、侵权法和法律体系的核心规则、测试与格言，将每一项表述为你可以应用于情景题的精确公式。用它进行快速复习，确保你永远不会遗漏必要要素。
1. The General Criminal Liability Formula | 一般刑事责任公式
To establish a criminal offence, the prosecution must prove two core components beyond reasonable doubt: the actus reus (guilty act) and the mens rea (guilty mind), both occurring simultaneously. The basic formula is: Crime = Actus Reus + Mens Rea + Absence of a Defence. The actus reus can be a positive act, a failure to act where there is a duty, or a state of affairs. Mens rea varies by offence — intention, recklessness, or negligence.
要认定一项刑事犯罪，控方必须排除合理怀疑地证明两个核心组成部分：犯罪行为（actus reus）和犯罪意图（mens rea），且二者同时发生。基本公式是：犯罪 = 犯罪行为 + 犯罪意图 + 无抗辩理由。犯罪行为可以是积极行为、负有义务时的不作为，或某种状态。犯罪意图因罪名而异——故意、轻率或疏忽。
| Element | Definition |
|---|---|
| Actus Reus | The physical element: conduct, consequence, or circumstance. |
| Mens Rea | The mental element: intention, recklessness, knowledge, or negligence. |
| Simultaneity | The actus reus and mens rea must coincide in time. |
Formula: Liability = AR + MR − Defence
2. Strict Liability Formula | 严格责任公式
Strict liability offences require only proof of the actus reus; no mens rea is needed for at least one element of the offence. The formula is: Strict Liability Crime = Actus Reus Only (no mens rea for that element). These are usually regulatory, quasi-criminal, or offences of social concern, such as selling alcohol to a minor or food safety breaches. The defendant can still raise the defence of due diligence if statutorily available.
严格责任犯罪仅需证明犯罪行为；至少犯罪的一个要素不需要犯罪意图。公式为：严格责任犯罪 = 仅犯罪行为（就该要素无犯罪意图要求）。这些通常是监管性、准刑事或涉及公众关切的罪行，例如向未成年人售酒或违反食品安全规定。如果法律有规定，被告仍可提出尽到应有勤勉的抗辩。
- No mens rea needed for the core prohibited act.
- Often created by statute using words like 'cause', 'permit', or 'sell'.
- Defences may include due diligence or third-party act.
核心被禁止行为无需犯罪意图。通常由制定法使用“导致”、“允许”或“销售”等词创设。抗辩可能包括尽到应有勤勉或第三方行为。
3. Omissions Liability Formula | 不作为责任公式
Generally there is no criminal liability for an omission unless a legal duty to act exists. The formula for omissions liability is: Duty + Failure to Act + Resulting Harm = Actus Reus by Omission. Duties arise from statute, contract, special relationship, voluntary assumption of care, or creation of a dangerous situation.
通常，除非存在法定作为义务，否则不作为不产生刑事责任。不作为责任公式为：义务 + 未作为 + 造成的损害 = 通过不作为构成的犯罪行为。义务产生于制定法、合同、特殊关系、自愿承担照料或制造危险情境。
Example: A parent has a duty to feed their child. Failure to do so, causing death, can establish the actus reus for manslaughter or murder. The key is that the duty is recognised by law and the defendant's failure is a but-for cause of the harm.
例：父母有义务喂养孩子。不履行义务导致死亡，可以构成过失杀人或谋杀的犯罪行为。关键在于该义务为法律所承认，且被告的未作为是造成损害的必要条件。
4. Causation: The Two-Stage Formula | 因果关系：两阶段公式
Causation is required for result crimes, linking the defendant's conduct to the prohibited consequence. Apply two tests: Factual Causation ('but for' test) and Legal Causation (substantial and operating cause). The formula is: Factual Cause + Legal Cause = Causation Established. The chain of causation must remain unbroken; intervening acts (novus actus interveniens) may break it.
结果犯要求因果关系，将被告的行为与被禁止的结果联系起来。适用两个测试：事实因果关系（“若无则不”测试）和法律因果关系（实质性且起作用的起因）。公式为：事实原因 + 法律原因 = 因果关系成立。因果关系链必须保持不中断；介入行为（新介入行为）可能中断因果关系。
Factual: 'But for' D's action, would the harm have occurred? If no, factual causation is satisfied. Legal: Was D's conduct a substantial, more than minimal, cause? Was it still operating at the time of harm? Thin skull rule: D takes the victim as found.
事实因果：“若无”被告的行为，损害会发生吗？如果不会，事实因果关系即告满足。法律因果：被告的行为是否是一个实质性、非微小的起因？在损害发生时它是否仍在起作用？薄颅骨规则：被告须接受受害人的既有体质。
5. Non-Fatal Offences: Assault and Battery Formulas | 非致命犯罪：袭击与殴打公式
Assault and battery are common law offences with distinct formulas. Assault Formula: Act causing victim to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence + intention or recklessness as to that apprehension. Battery Formula: Unlawful application of force to another + intention or recklessness as to that contact. Neither requires physical injury; emotional impact suffices for assault.
袭击和殴打是普通法犯罪，各有不同公式。袭击公式：导致被害人担心即将遭受非法人身暴力的行为 + 对此担心的故意或轻率。殴打公式：非法对他人施加武力 + 对此接触的故意或轻率。二者均不要求身体伤害；对于袭击，情感冲击即足够。
| Offence | AR Formula | MR Formula |
|---|---|---|
| Assault | Causing V to apprehend immediate unlawful force | Intention or recklessness as to causing apprehension |
| Battery | Infliction of unlawful force on V | Intention or recklessness as to applying unlawful force |
ns rea. Remember the ladder: Assault/Battery → s.47 ABH → s.20 GBH → s.18 GBH with intent.
更严重的罪行（实际身体伤害、严重身体伤害）在这些基础公式上叠加伤害程度和相应的犯罪意图。记住阶梯：袭击/殴打 → 第47条实际身体伤害 → 第20条严重身体伤害 → 第18条故意严重身体伤害。
6. Theft Formula under the Theft Act 1968 | 《1968年盗窃法》盗窃公式
Theft is defined by s.1 as the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. The formula has five elements, all must be satisfied: + Property + Belonging to Another + Dishonesty + Intention to Permanently Deprive = Theft. Appropriation is any assumption of the owner's rights; dishonesty is partly defined by s.2 exceptions and the common law Ghosh test (now Ivey test).
盗窃罪由第1条定义为：以永久剥夺他人财产为目的，不诚实地侵占属于他人的财产。公式包含五个要素，必须全部满足：侵占 + 财产 + 属于他人 + 不诚实 + 永久剥夺意图 = 盗窃。侵占是指任何行使所有者权利的行为；不诚实部分由第2条例外和普通法 Ghosh 测试（现为 Ivey 测试）界定。
- Appropriation: s.3 — assuming rights of owner; can be even with consent (Lawrence).
- Property: s.4 — includes money, personal property, things in action, intangible property.
- Belonging to another: s.5 — possession or control, or any proprietary interest.
- Dishonesty: s.2 gives three situations not dishonest; otherwise apply the Ivey test: what was D's actual state of knowledge or belief as to the facts, and was the conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people?
- Intention to permanently deprive: s.6 — treat the thing as one's own regardless of the other's rights.
侵占：第3条——行使所有者权利；甚至可在同意下发生（Lawrence案）。财产：第4条——包括金钱、个人财产、诉讼物、无形财产。属于他人：第5条——占有、控制或任何财产权益。不诚实：第2条规定了三种不属不诚实的情形；否则适用 Ivey 测试：被告对事实的实际认知或信念是什么？根据普通正派人的标准，此行为是否不诚实？永久剥夺意图：第6条——不顾他人权利将物品视为己有。
7. Robbery Formula | 抢劫公式
Robbery is aggravated theft under s.8: a person steals and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, uses force on any person or puts/seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force. The formula is: te theft) + Use/Threat of Force + Immediately Before/At Time + In Order to Steal = Robbery. If theft is not completed, there is no robbery.
抢劫是第8条规定的加重的盗窃：一个人实施盗窃，并在即将盗窃前或盗窃时，且为了盗窃，对任何人使用武力，或使/试图使任何人担心当场受到武力。公式为：盗窃（完整盗窃） + 使用/威胁武力 + 在盗窃即将前或当时 + 为了盗窃 = 抢劫。如果盗窃未完成，则无抢劫。
The force or threat need not be substantial; a small push may suffice. The force must be used in order to steal, not merely alongside it. The mens rea for robbery is the same as for theft plus intention to use/threaten force to steal.
武力或威胁无需重大；轻轻一推可能即足够。武力必须是为了盗窃而使用，而不仅仅是伴随发生。抢劫的犯罪意图与盗窃相同，另加为盗窃而使用/威胁武力的故意。
8. Murder Formula | 谋杀公式
Murder is the unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being under the Queen's (King's) peace with malice aforethought, express or implied. The modern formula: Unlawful Killing + Human Being + Under the Queen's Peace + Intention to Kill or Cause GBH = Murder. Mens rea is intention to kill OR intention to cause really serious harm. Recklessness as to serious harm does not suffice; it must be actual intention.
谋杀是指非法杀害一个有理智的生命体，在女（国）王的和平下，并具有明示或默示的恶意预谋。现代公式：非法杀害 + 人类 + 在女（国）王和平下 + 故意杀人或造成严重身体伤害 = 谋杀。犯罪意图是故意杀人或故意造成真正严重伤害。对严重伤害的轻率不够；必须是实际故意。
The actus reus requires proof that the defendant caused the death, applying the causation formula. The victim must be a living human being; for WJEC, note that a foetus is not a human being for murder, but can be for manslaughter if born alive and later dies from injuries.
犯罪行为要求证明被告导致了死亡，运用因果关系公式。被害人必须是活着的人类；对于 WJEC，注意胎儿不构成谋杀意义上的人，但若活体出生后因伤害死亡，可构成过失杀人。
9. Voluntary Manslaughter: Diminished Responsibility Formula | 故意杀人减免责任：减轻责任公式
Diminished responsibility, under s.2 Homicide Act 1957 as amended, reduces murder to manslaughter. The formula is: ility (for doing the killing or being a party) + Provides Explanation for the Killing = DR. All four elements must be established on the balance of probabilities.
减轻责任依据修订后的《1957年杀人法》第2条，将谋杀减轻为过失杀人。公式为：精神功能异常 + 公认的医学状况 + 实质性损害责任能力（实施杀害或参与）+ 为杀害提供解释 = 减轻责任。所有四个要素必须在相对可能性的权衡下予以证明。
The abnormality must arise from a recognised medical condition (e.g., depression, PTSD, schizophrenia) and must substantially impair the defendant's ability to understand the nature of their conduct, form a rational judgment, or exercise self-control. It must cause or be a significant contributory factor in the killing.
该异常必须源自公认的医学状况（例如抑郁症、创伤后应激障碍、精神分裂症），并且必须实质性损害被告理解行为性质、形成理性判断或行使自我控制的能力。它必须是造成杀害的原因或重要促成因素。
10. Voluntary Manslaughter: Loss of Control Formula | 故意杀人减免责任：失控公式
Loss of control, under ss.54-55 Coroners and Justice Act 2009, is the other main special defence. The formula has three stages: : Loss of Self-control + Qualifying Trigger + Objective Normal Person Test = Loss of Control Defence. The killing must result from the loss of self-control; the loss need not be sudden. The trigger must be fear of serious violence or things said/done which constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character and caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.
失控依据《2009年死因裁判官与司法法》第54-55条，是另一主要特殊抗辩。公式分三阶段：丧失自控 + 合格触发事件 + 客观正常人标准 = 失控抗辩。杀害必须是丧失自控的结果；丧失不必是突然的。触发事件必须是对严重暴力的恐惧，或所言之词、所做之事构成极端严重性质的情境，并使被告产生正当的严重被冤屈感。
The objective test excludes revenge or considered desire for revenge. A person of D's sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint, must have acted similarly. Combined, these form a robust filter to ensure only meritorious cases succeed.
客观测试排除报复或经过考虑的报复欲望。一个与被告同性别、同年龄、具有正常容忍度和自我克制力的人，在相同情境下必须会采取类似行动。这些要素共同构成严格筛选，确保只有值得宽宥的案件才能成功。
11. Involuntary Manslaughter: Unlawful and Dangerous Act Formula | 非故意杀人：非法及危险行为公式
Involuntary manslaughter is an unlawful killing without malice aforethought. The most common form for WJEC is unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter. The formula: Unlawful Act (crime) + Act is Dangerous (objective) + Act Causes Death = UDA Manslaughter. The prosecution must prove the defendant committed an intentional criminal act (not negligence) that a sober and reasonable person would recognise carries some risk of physical harm, and that act caused death.
非故意杀人是指无恶意预谋的非法杀害。对于 WJEC，最常见的形式是非法及危险行为过失杀人。公式为：非法行为（犯罪）+ 该行为具有危险性（客观）+ 行为导致死亡 = 非法及危险行为过失杀人。控方必须证明被告实施了一项故意的刑事行为（非疏忽），且一个清醒理性的人会认识到该行为带有某种人身伤害风险，并且该行为导致了死亡。
The unlawful act must be a crime; tortious conduct is insufficient. The act must also be intrinsically unlawful, not merely unlawful because negligently performed. The risk of harm must be physical, not emotional. Causation must be proved using the standard two-stage formula.
非法行为必须是一项犯罪；侵权行为不足够。该行为还须本身即不合法，而非仅因疏忽履行而不合法。伤害风险必须是人身方面的，而非情感方面的。因果关系必须使用标准两阶段公式予以证明。
12. Tort of Negligence: Caparo Test Formula | 过失侵权：Caparo 测试公式
Negligence forms part of the WJEC civil law syllabus. To establish a duty of care, the court applies the Caparo three-stage test from Caparo Industries v Dickman. The formula: ge + Proximity Between Parties + Fair, Just and Reasonable to Impose a Duty = Duty of Care. If a duty exists, breach and causation/damage must be proved.
过失侵权是 WJEC 民法大纲的一部分。要确立注意义务，法院适用源自 Caparo Industries v Dickman 案的 Caparo 三阶段测试。公式为：损害可预见性 + 当事人之间关系密切性 + 施加义务公平、公正且合理 = 注意义务。如果义务存在，还必须证明违反义务以及因果关系/损害。
Breach is assessed by the reasonable person standard; for professionals, the Bolam test applies. Causation uses the 'but for' test and remoteness considers whether the type of damage was reasonably foreseeable (the Wagon Mound test).
违反注意义务依据理性人标准评判；对于专业人士，适用 Bolam 测试。因果关系使用“若无则不”测试，而损害的遥远性则考虑损害类型是否可合理预见（Wagon Mound 测试）。
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