📚 GCSE Cambridge Law: Key Principles & Legal Maxims Quick Reference Handbook | GCSE剑桥法律：核心原则与法律格言速查手册
In the study of law, the closest equivalents to the 'formulae' and 'theorems' of mathematics are the foundational legal principles, definitive tests and time-honoured maxims that shape every legal argument. This quick reference handbook brings together the essential building blocks of the Cambridge GCSE Law syllabus, offering clear English explanations alongside Chinese translations to help you internalise the logic of the law. From the structure of the court system to the elements of a crime, from the rules of statutory interpretation to the core principles of tort and contract, the content that follows is designed to be your go-to revision companion. Each section pairs a crisp English statement with its Chinese counterpart, ensuring you grasp concepts in both the language of the original common law tradition and your own.
在法律学习中，最接近数学里“公式”与“定理”的东西，就是那些塑造每一个法律论辩的基础性原则、决定性检验标准和历史悠久的法律格言。这本速查手册汇集了剑桥GCSE法律课程的核心构件，用清晰的英文解释搭配中文翻译，帮助你内化法律的逻辑。从法院体系的架构到犯罪的构成要素，从法律解释的规则到侵权与合同的核心原则，接下来的内容将成为你复习的必备伙伴。每一节都将简练的英文陈述与其中文对应语配对呈现，确保你能在普通法传统的源语言和母语之间自如理解概念。
1. Definitions and Classifications of Law | 法律的定义与分类
Law can be understood as a system of rules created and enforced through social or governmental institutions to regulate behaviour, with its breach typically attracting a sanction. Modern English law is commonly divided into public law, which governs the relationship between individuals and the state (such as constitutional and criminal law), and private law, which deals with relationships between individuals (such as contract and tort law). Another fundamental distinction is between criminal law, where the state prosecutes a defendant for conduct deemed harmful to society, and civil law, where a claimant sues a respondent to obtain a remedy like damages or an injunction.
法律可以理解为一套通过社会或政府机构创设并执行的规则体系，用于规范行为，违法通常会导致制裁。现代英国法通常分为公法与私法：公法规制个人与国家之间的关系（如宪法和刑法），私法则处理个人之间的关系（如合同法和侵权法）。另一个基本区分是刑法和民法：在刑法中，国家起诉那些被认为对社会有害的行为；在民法中，原告起诉被告以获得损害赔偿或禁制令等救济。
The concept of the rule of law requires that all persons, including government officials, are subject to and accountable under the law, and that the law itself is clear, publicised and applied evenly. Legal principles are also classified by their source, with statute law (Acts of Parliament) holding supremacy over common law (judge-made law) in most domestic contexts.
法治概念要求所有人，包括政府官员，都在法律之下，并对法律负责，法律本身必须明确、公布并平等适用。法律原则还可以按其渊源分类：在英国国内，制定法（议会法令）通常优先于普通法（法官造法）。
2. Sources of Law | 法律渊源
The primary source of English law is legislation – Acts of Parliament (statute law) and delegated legislation (such as statutory instruments made by ministers under powers granted by Parliament). In the hierarchy of laws, an Act of Parliament is supreme, meaning no other domestic body can override it; courts can only interpret but not strike down such legislation. Parliament is sovereign, and EU law retains only a limited historical influence post-Brexit through retained EU law.
英国法的首要渊源是立法——议会法令（制定法）和授权立法（例如部长根据议会授予的权力制定的行政规章）。在法律位阶中，议会法令处于最高地位，没有其他国内机构可以推翻它；法院只能解释而不能废除这类立法。议会拥有主权，而欧盟法在英国脱欧后仅通过“保留的欧盟法”保留有限的历史影响。
Common law (also called case law or precedent) is developed by judges through decisions in individual cases. These judicial decisions create binding precedents for lower courts under the doctrine of stare decisis (let the decision stand). The ratio decidendi – the legal reasoning necessary to the decision – is the binding element; any obiter dicta (remarks made in passing) are persuasive but not binding.
普通法（亦称判例法或先例）由法官在个案裁决中发展而来。在先例约束原则（遵循先例）之下，这些司法裁决对下级法院产生具有约束力的先例。判决理由——作出裁决所必需的法律推理——是有约束力的部分；任何附带意见（判决中的附带评论）具有说服力但不具有约束力。
Other subsidiary sources include custom (long-established usage accepted as law) and persuasive precedents from other jurisdictions, particularly influential in the absence of a binding English authority.
其他辅助渊源包括习惯（被接受为法律的长期惯例）以及来自其他司法管辖区的有说服力的先例，尤其在缺乏具有约束力的英国判例时具有影响力。
3. Hierarchy of Courts and the Doctrine of Precedent | 法院等级与遵循先例原则
The English court structure is arranged in a clear hierarchy for the purpose of precedent. The Supreme Court (formerly the House of Lords) sits at the apex; its decisions bind all lower courts, and since 1966 it has been able to depart from its own previous decisions when it appears right to do so. The Court of Appeal (Civil and Criminal Divisions) is bound by the Supreme Court and normally by its own previous decisions, subject to limited exceptions set out in Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd (1944).
为遵循先例的目的，英国法院体系安排在一个明确的等级当中。最高法院（原上议院）居于顶点；其裁决约束所有下级法院，并且自1966年起，它可以在认为适当的时候背离自己先前的裁决。上诉法院（民事庭和刑事庭）受最高法院约束，通常也受自己先前裁决的约束，但须遵守Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd (1944)案中所列明的有限例外。
The High Court binds the county courts and other inferior courts, and its own decisions – while not strictly binding on other High Court judges – are of strong persuasive authority. Below the High Court, the Crown Court, Magistrates' Courts and County Courts do not create binding precedents, though they must follow the decisions of the courts above them. The principle of vertical precedent requires lower courts to follow higher courts, while horizontal precedent refers to the practice of courts following their own past rulings.
高等法院约束郡法院及其他下级法院，其裁决虽对其他高等法院法官没有严格约束力，但具有很强的说服性权威。在高等法院之下，刑事法院、治安法院和郡法院不创造具有约束力的先例，但它们必须遵循上级法院的裁决。垂直先例原则要求下级法院遵循上级法院，而水平先例则指某一法院遵循自身既往判例的做法。
4. Rules of Statutory Interpretation | 法律解释规则
When the meaning of an Act of Parliament is unclear, judges employ a set of established rules and aids to statutory interpretation. The literal rule requires the court to give words their plain, ordinary dictionary meaning, even if this leads to an absurd or harsh result (Whiteley v Chappell 1868). The golden rule is a modification: the court starts with the literal meaning, but can avoid an absurd outcome by choosing an alternative plausible meaning or by modifying the literal reading (R v Allen 1872).
当议会制定的法律含义不清时，法官会使用一套既定的解释规则和辅助工具。文义解释规则要求法院按词语在字典中的通常意义去理解，即使这会导致荒谬或严苛的结果（Whiteley v Chappell 1868）。黄金规则是一种修正：法院从文义出发，但为了避免荒谬的结果，可以选择另一种合理的含义或者修改过于极端的文义解读（R v Allen 1872）。
The mischief rule looks back to the 'mischief' or defect in the previous law that the statute was meant to remedy, and interprets the Act so as to suppress that mischief (Heydon's Case 1584). The purposive approach, now widely used particularly under the influence of European and human rights law, seeks to give effect to the overall purpose of the legislation, looking at the spirit rather than just the letter of the law (Pepper v Hart 1993 allows limited reference to parliamentary debates).
弊端规则回溯该法律所要补救的“弊端”或先前法律的缺陷，并据以解释法律以清除该弊端（Heydon's Case 1584）。目的解释法现在被广泛采用，尤其在欧洲法和人权法的影响下，旨在实现立法的整体目的，既看法律的字面也看其精神（Pepper v Hart 1993允许在有限范围内参考议会辩论记录）。
Internal aids (such as the long title, preamble and interpretation sections within the Act) and external aids (dictionaries, text books and Law Commission reports) help the court determine which rule to apply and what interpretation best fits the statute's purpose.
内部辅助资料（如法案中的长标题、序言和定义条款）和外部辅助资料（词典、教科书和法律委员会报告）帮助法院确定适用哪项规则以及哪种诠释最符合该法律的目的。
5. Criminal Law: Actus Reus and Mens Rea | 刑法：犯罪行为与犯罪意图
A criminal offence generally requires proof of two key elements: the actus reus (the guilty act or external element) and the mens rea (the guilty mind or mental element). The prosecution must prove both beyond reasonable doubt. The actus reus can involve a positive act, an omission where a duty to act exists (such as a contractual duty or a duty arising from a special relationship), or a state of affairs under certain statutory offences.
一项刑事犯罪通常需要证明两个关键要素：犯罪行为（外部的有罪行为）和犯罪意图（内心的有罪心理）。控方必须对这两项均证明到排除合理怀疑的程度。犯罪行为可以是积极作为，也可以是在负有作为义务时的不作为（如合同义务或因特殊关系产生的义务），还可以是某些法定犯罪所规定的特定事态。
Mens rea describes the mental state required for a particular offence. The highest level is intention (direct or oblique), where the defendant either desired the consequence or foresaw it as a virtually certain result (R v Woollin 1998). Recklessness involves taking an unjustified risk that a reasonable person would not take, usually judged subjectively (the defendant consciously took the risk, as in R v Cunningham 1957). Some crimes, such as assault and battery, require only basic intention (intention or recklessness as to the action rather than the full consequences).
犯罪意图描述的是特定犯罪所要求的主观心理状态。最高层级是意图（直接意图或间接意图），指被告希望某一结果发生，或者预见到该结果几乎确定会发生（R v Woollin 1998）。轻率则指一个人冒了某个一个有理智的人都不会去冒的不正当风险，通常采用主观标准（被告自己有意识地冒了风险，见R v Cunningham 1957）。某些犯罪，如殴击和普通侵犯人身，只要求有基本意图（对行为本身的意图或轻率，而非对全部后果的意图）。
Crimes of strict liability require no proof of mens rea for at least part of the actus reus; they are typically regulatory offences concerning public health, safety or the environment (Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd 1986).
严格责任犯罪不要求证明至少部分犯罪行为的犯罪意图；它们通常是涉及公共卫生、安全或环境保护的管理性犯罪（Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd 1986）。
6. Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person | 非致命侵犯人身罪
The non-fatal offences against the person are tiered according to the seriousness of harm and the mental element. Common assault (also termed simple assault) and battery together are the least serious, prosecuted under section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. An assault is any act that intentionally or recklessly causes another person to apprehend immediate unlawful force; a battery is the actual infliction of unlawful force. Both require only basic intent.
非致命侵犯人身罪依据伤害程度和主观要素分级。普通侵犯（亦称简单侵犯）和殴击是最轻的，依据1988年刑事司法法第39条起诉。侵犯是任何故意或轻率地使他人感到即将遭受即时的非法武力的行为；殴击则是实际施加非法武力。两者均只需基本意图。
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) under section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 requires proof of an assault or battery that causes 'actual bodily harm' – an injury that is more than merely transient or trifling, including psychiatric injury (R v Miller 1954). The mens rea is the same as for the underlying assault or battery; no specific intention to cause ABH is needed.
造成实际身体伤害的侵犯（ABH），依据1861年侵犯人身罪法第47条，需要证明造成了“实际身体伤害”的侵犯或殴击——这种伤害须超出短暂或轻微的范畴，包括精神伤害（R v Miller 1954）。其犯罪意图与基础侵犯或殴击相同；不需要有造成实际身体伤害的具体故意。
Malicious wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm (GBH) under section 20 is more serious: the prosecution must prove the defendant 'wounded' or inflicted 'really serious harm'. The mens rea is maliciousness – the defendant was reckless as to some physical harm (not necessarily serious harm), following R v Mowatt 1968. Wounding or causing GBH with intent (section 18) is the most serious, requiring proof of a specific intent to cause serious harm or to resist arrest.
第20条规定的恶意致伤或造成严重身体伤害（GBH）更为严重：控方须证明被告“致伤”或造成了“真正严重的伤害”。其犯意为恶意——根据R v Mowatt 1968，被告只须对某些身体伤害持轻率态度（不必是严重伤害）。第18条下的故意致伤或造成严重身体伤害是最严重的情况，需要证明引起严重伤害或抗拒逮捕的特定故意。
7. Property Offences: Theft and Robbery | 财产犯罪：盗窃与抢劫
Theft is defined in section 1 of the 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." Each element – dishonesty (judged by the standards of ordinary decent people, with certain statutory tests as in R v Ghosh 1982 and later the Ivey test), appropriation (any assumption of the owner's rights), property (including money, personal property and intangible property), belonging to another (any person having possession or control), and an intention to permanently deprive (treating the property as one's own regardless of the owner's rights) – must be present.
盗窃的定义见于1968年盗窃法第1条：“任何人如以不诚实的方式占有属于他人的财产，并意图永久剥夺他人对该财产的权利，即犯盗窃罪。” 每个构成要素——不诚实（按照普通正派人士的标准判断，并符合R v Ghosh 1982及后来的Ivey案检验标准）、占有（对所有人权利的任何行使）、财产（包括货币、个人动产及无形财产）、属于他人（任何拥有占有或控制权的人）、以及永久剥夺的意图（将财产视为己有而不顾原所有人的权利）——都必须具备。
Robbery is effectively aggravated theft under section 8: a person commits robbery if he steals and, immediately before or at the time of doing so, uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force. The force or threat must be used in order to steal, and all the elements of theft must be satisfied. If the theft is complete before any force is used, the later use of force to escape does not constitute robbery (R v Hale 1978 complicates this timing question).
抢劫实际上是被加重了的盗窃，规定于第8条：任何人在盗窃时，或在盗窃即将实施时或实施过程中，对任何人使用武力，或使或试图使任何人因恐惧当场遭受武力而就范，即犯抢劫罪。武力或威胁必须是为了偷窃而使用，并且必须满足盗窃的所有要素。如果盗窃在武力使用前已经完成，随后为逃脱而使用武力则不构成抢劫（但R v Hale 1978使这一时间节点的判断复杂化）。
Burglary under section 9 involves entering a building or part of a building as a trespasser with intent to commit theft, inflict GBH or cause unlawful damage, or having entered, committing or attempting to commit theft or GBH.
入室盗窃罪（第9条）指作为侵入者进入建筑物或建筑物的一部分，并怀有实施盗窃、造成严重身体伤害或非法毁损的意图，或在进入后实施或试图实施盗窃或造成严重身体伤害的犯罪。
8. Civil Law: The Tort of Negligence | 民法：过失侵权
Negligence is a tort that imposes liability where a duty of care is breached and causes damage. The modern approach stems from Donoghue v Stevenson 1932, which established the neighbour principle: you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour – persons directly and closely affected by your conduct. The three-stage Caparo test (Caparo Industries plc v Dickman 1990) requires that harm was reasonably foreseeable, that there was a relationship of sufficient proximity between the parties, and that it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty.
过失侵权是一种在注意义务被违反并造成损害时产生责任的侵权行为。现代方法源于Donoghue v Stevenson 1932案，该案确立了邻人原则：你必须采取合理的注意，避免那些你能够合理预见可能伤害你邻人的作为或不作为——邻人即那些直接和紧密地受你行为影响的人。Caparo三阶段检验标准（Caparo Industries plc v Dickman 1990）要求：损害是可以合理预见的、当事人之间存在足够密切的关系、且科以义务是公平、公正而合理的。
Breach of duty is judged against the 'reasonable person' – an objective standard. The court will consider factors such as the likelihood of harm, the seriousness of potential injury, the practicality and cost of taking precautions, and the social utility of the defendant's conduct (Bolton v Stone 1951, Latimer v AEC 1953). Professionals are held to the standard of a reasonably competent member of that profession (Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee 1957, modified by the Bolitho gloss).
对义务的违反依照“理性人”这一客观标准评判。法院会考虑损害发生的可能性、潜在伤害的严重程度、采取预防措施的可行性与成本，以及被告行为的社会效用等因素（Bolton v Stone 1951, Latimer v AEC 1953）。专业人士的注意标准是相关领域具有合理胜任能力的专业人员的标准（Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee 1957，并由Bolitho案加以修正）。
Causation requires both factual causation (the 'but for' test – but for the defendant's breach, would the damage have occurred? Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital 1969) and legal causation (it must be a substantial and operating cause, with no intervening act breaking the chain of causation). The damage must also be of a type that was reasonably foreseeable (Wagon Mound No 1 1961) and not too remote.
因果关系既要求事实上的因果关系（“若无则不”检验标准——若无被告的过失行为，损害是否还会发生？Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital 1969），也要求法律上的因果关系（被告的过失必须是损害的一个实质性的、起作用的致因，且不存在中断因果锁链的介入行为）。损害还必须是能够合理预见的类型（Wagon Mound No 1 1961），不能过于遥远。
9. Contract Law: Offer, Acceptance and Consideration | 合同法：要约、承诺与对价
A legally binding contract requires an offer and acceptance, consideration, intention to create legal relations, and sufficient certainty of terms. An offer is an expression of willingness to contract on specified terms, made with the intention that it shall become binding as soon as it is accepted. It must be distinguished from an invitation to treat, which is merely an invitation to negotiate or make an offer (Fisher v Bell 1961 – goods displayed in a shop window; Partridge v Crittenden 1968 – advertisements).
一个具有法律约束力的合同需要要约与承诺、对价、建立法律关系的意图，以及条款的足够确定性。要约是一种按照特定条件订立合同的意愿表达，并具有一旦被接受即受其约束的意图。它必须与要约邀请区分开来，后者仅是一种邀请谈判或发出要约的表示（Fisher v Bell 1961 — 橱窗内陈列的商品；Partridge v Crittenden 1968 — 广告）。
Acceptance must be a mirror image of the offer, communicated to the offeror, and made in reliance upon the offer. Silence cannot constitute acceptance (Felthouse v Bindley 1862). The postal rule states that acceptance by post is effective when the letter is posted, not when it is received (Adams v Lindsell 1818), provided the use of post was reasonable and the letter is properly addressed.
承诺必须与要约的条款完全一致（镜像规则），须向要约人传达，且是基于要约而作出。沉默不构成承诺（Felthouse v Bindley 1862）。邮寄规则规定，通过邮寄作出的承诺在信件投邮时即生效，而非在收到时（Adams v Lindsell 1818），前提是使用邮寄方式是合理的且信件已正确填写地址。
Consideration is the exchange of something of value in the eyes of the law. It must move from the promisee, need not be adequate but must be sufficient (Chappell v Nestle 1960 – chocolate bar wrappers), and must not be past (Re McArdle 1951). In commercial agreements, there is a strong presumption of intention to create legal relations (Edwards v Skyways 1964), while in social and domestic agreements the presumption is the opposite (Balfour v Balfour 1919).
对价是法律眼中某种有价值事物的交换。对价必须来自受诺人，不必足够但必须充分（Chappell v Nestle 1960 — 巧克力棒包装纸），并且不能是过去的对价（Re McArdle 1951）。在商事协议中，存在建立法律关系的强烈推定（Edwards v Skyways 1964），而在社交及家庭协议中，推定则相反（Balfour v Balfour 1919）。
10. Legal Maxims (I) – Foundations of Justice | 法律格言 (一) —— 正义的基石
'Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea' – an act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty. This foundational maxim captures the twin requirements of actus reus and mens rea in criminal law. Only where a statute explicitly removes the mental element (strict liability) can a person be convicted on conduct alone.
“Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea”——仅有行为不足以使人有罪，除非其心态同样可责。这条基石性格言概括了刑法中犯罪行为与犯罪意图的双重要求。只有在法律明文取消了主观要件（严格责任）的情况下，才能仅凭行为定罪。
'Ignorantia juris non excusat' – ignorance of the law is no excuse. Every person is presumed to know the law, and a defendant cannot escape liability merely by asserting that they did not realise their conduct was unlawful. This maxim protects the coherence of the legal system by preventing subjective ignorance from defeating legislative intent.
“Ignorantia juris non excusat”——不懂法律不可作为辩解理由。每个人都推定知晓法律，被告不能仅以未意识到自己行为违法来逃脱责任。这一格言通过阻止主观上的不知来挫败立法意图，从而维护了法律体系的连贯性。
'Nemo dat quod non habet' – no one can give what they do not have. In property law, a thief or a fraudulent seller who does not have good title cannot pass good title to a buyer, subject to certain statutory and equitable exceptions. This principle protects original owners and underscores the importance of the chain of ownership.
“Nemo dat quod non habet”——无人能够给出自己所没有的东西。在财产法上，没有合法所有权的盗窃者或欺诈性出卖人不能将完整的所有权转移给买受人，但须遵守某些法定和衡平法上的例外。这项原则保护了原始所有人的利益，并强调所有权链条的重要性。
'Res ipsa loquitur' – the thing speaks for itself. In tort law, this evidential maxim assists a claimant where the accident is of such a nature that it would not ordinarily occur without negligence, the instrument causing harm was under the defendant's control, and no other explanation is forthcoming (Scott v London & St Katherine Docks 1865).
“Res ipsa loquitur”——事实本身说明一切。在侵权法中，这条证据格言在事故性质本身暗示通常若无过失便不会发生、造成伤害的工具处于被告控制之下、且无其他解释的情况下，帮助原告完成举证（Scott v London & St Katherine Docks 1865）。
11. Legal Maxims (II) – Procedure, Equity and Contract | 法律格言 (二) —— 程序、衡平法与合同
'Audi alteram partem' – hear the other side. This fundamental principle of natural justice requires that no person be judged without a fair hearing in which they have an opportunity to respond to the case against them. It underpins procedural fairness in both judicial and administrative decisions.
“Audi alteram partem”——听取另一方之说辞。这条自然正义的基本原则要求，任何人在未接受公平聆讯并有机会回应针对其的指控之前，不得被作出不利裁判。它构成了司法和行政决定程序公正的基础。
'He who comes to equity must come with clean hands.' A claimant seeking an equitable remedy (such as an injunction or specific performance) must not themselves have acted in a dishonest or improper way in relation to the matter before the court. Equity will not assist a party who has engaged in unconscionable conduct.
“寻求衡平法救济者自身必须双手清白。”请求衡平法救济（如禁制令或强制履行）的原告，本身在相关事务中不得有失信或不正当的行为。衡平法不会帮助一个行为不合情理的一方当事人。
'Caveat emptor' – let the buyer beware. This common law principle places the risk of defects in goods upon the buyer, who should examine the goods before purchase, though its harshness has been significantly mitigated by modern consumer protection statutes such as the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
“Caveat emptor”——买方自负其责。这项普通法原则将商品瑕疵的风险置于买方身上，买方应在购买前检查货物，不过其严苛性已被现代消费者保护法律（如2015年消费者权利法）大大缓解。
12. Case Precedent Snapshots | 判例速查
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) – The snail in the ginger beer bottle laid the foundation of the modern tort of negligence. The House of Lords held that a manufacturer owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer where there is no reasonable possibility of intermediate inspection, establishing the neighbour principle and opening the door for the expansive duty of care concept in English law.
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) ——姜汁啤酒瓶里的蜗牛奠定了现代过失侵权的基础。上议院裁定，制造商在不存在合理中间检查可能性的情况下，对最终消费者负有注意义务，从而确立了邻人原则，为英国法中注意义务概念的扩展打开了大门。
R v Cunningham (1957) – The defendant tore a gas meter from a wall to steal money, causing gas to seep into an adjoining house and partially asphyxiating the occupant. The Court of Criminal Appeal defined recklessness subjectively: the prosecution must prove the defendant foresaw the risk of the prohibited harm yet went on to take it. This sets the standard for the mens rea of most criminal offences involving recklessness.
R v Cunningham (1957) ——被告为了偷钱而从墙上扯下煤气表，导致煤气渗入相邻房屋并使居住者部分窒息。刑事上诉法院对轻率作出了主观定义：控方必须证明被告预见到了被禁止的伤害的风险，却仍然冒险行事。这为大多数涉及轻率的刑事犯罪的犯意设定了标准。
R v Ghosh (1982) and Ivey v Genting Casinos (2017) – For decades dishonesty was judged by the two-stage Ghosh test: was the defendant's conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people, and did the defendant realise it? The Supreme Court in Ivey replaced this with a purely objective test
Published by TutorHao | GCSE 法律 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