📚 A-Level WJEC Law: Vocabulary and Terminology Quick-Memorisation Guide | A-Level WJEC 法律：词汇术语速记指南
Mastering precise legal terminology is half the battle for top marks in WJEC A-Level Law. This guide selects the most tested terms across Criminal Law, Tort, and Contract, giving you clear English definitions, reliable memory shortcuts, and bilingual explanations to lock them in fast.
精准掌握法律术语是你在 WJEC A-Level 法律考试中拿下高分的关键。本文精选刑法、侵权法和合同法中最常考的术语，提供清晰的英文释义、可靠的记忆捷径以及中英双语解释，帮助你快速永久记住它们。
1. Actus Reus and Mens Rea | 犯罪行为与犯罪意图
Actus reus means the 'guilty act' — it is the physical element of a crime, including an act, omission, or state of affairs. Mens rea is the 'guilty mind' and refers to the defendant's mental state, such as intention, recklessness, or dishonesty.
Actus reus 指“犯罪行为”——犯罪的客观要素，包括作为、不作为或特定状态。Mens rea 是“犯罪意图”，指被告的主观心理状态，例如故意、鲁莽或不诚实。
Memory trick: Think 'Actus = Action' (both start with 'A'), and 'Mens = Mind' (both start with 'M'). Always ask: Did the defendant do it? Did they mean it?
记忆技巧：Actus 联想到 Action（行动），都以 A 开头；Mens 联想到 Mind（心智），都以 M 开头。遇案必问：他做了吗？他想做吗？
Some crimes, like strict liability offences, do not require mens rea — only the actus reus must be proved. This makes them an exception worth remembering.
有些罪行，比如严格责任犯罪，不需要证明犯罪意图——只需证明犯罪行为。这使其成为值得记住的例外。
2. Strict Liability | 严格责任
Strict liability offences require no proof of mens rea. The prosecution only needs to establish that the defendant committed the actus reus voluntarily. Common examples include regulatory offences, selling alcohol to minors, and some environmental crimes.
严格责任罪行不需要证明犯罪意图。控方只需证明被告自愿实施了犯罪行为。常见例子包括监管犯罪、向未成年人售酒以及某些环境犯罪。
Memory anchor: 'Strict' means no excuse — even if you had no guilty mind, you are still liable. Connect it to the phrase 'strictly no intent required'.
记忆锚点：“Strict”就是没有借口——即使没有犯意，也要承担责任。联想短语“strictly no intent required”（严格无需意图）。
WJEC often tests this in essays about the need for strict liability versus injustice to the defendant. Learn the four Gammon tests from the case Gammon (HK) Ltd v Attorney-General (1985) to identify when a statute creates a strict liability offence.
WJEC 常以此考察严格责任的必要性与其对被告可能不公的论述。记住 Gammon (HK) Ltd v Attorney-General (1985) 案确立的四项 Gammon 测试，以判断某法条是否创设了严格责任罪行。
3. Causation | 因果关系
Causation links the defendant's act to the result. There are two types: factual causation, tested by the 'but for' test (but for the defendant's actions, would the result have happened?); and legal causation, which requires the defendant's act to be an operating and substantial cause of the harm.
因果关系把被告的行为和结果连接起来。分为两类：事实因果关系，用“若非”测试（若非被告的行为，结果会发生吗？）；法律因果关系，要求被告的行为是造成损害的持续且实质的原因。
Remember the thin skull rule: a defendant must take their victim as they find them. If the victim has a pre-existing condition that makes the injury worse, the chain of causation is not broken.
记住薄头盖骨规则：被告必须接受受害者原本的状态。如果受害者本身有特殊体质使伤害加重，因果关系链条不会中断。
Visualise a chain. Factual cause starts the chain, legal cause keeps it unbroken. Novus actus interveniens (a new intervening act) breaks the chain, such as a third party's free, informed and voluntary act or a wholly unforeseeable natural event.
想象一条链条。事实原因开启链条，法律原因保持链条不断。新的介入行为（novus actus interveniens）会打断链条，例如第三方自由、知情且自愿的行为，或者完全不可预见的自然事件。
4. Defences: Self-defence, Duress, and Necessity | 抗辩：自卫、胁迫与紧急避险
Self-defence (and defence of another) allows reasonable force to be used to protect oneself or another from an unjust threat. The force must be necessary and proportionate as the defendant honestly believed the circumstances to be.
自卫（及防卫他人）允许为了保护自己或他人免受不公正威胁而使用合理的武力。武力必须是必要的，且根据被告当时诚实地相信的情况来衡量是相称的。
Duress operates where the defendant is forced to commit a crime because of a threat of death or serious injury. It is unavailable for murder and may not succeed if the defendant voluntarily associated with criminals.
胁迫是指被告因受到死亡或严重伤害的威胁而被迫犯罪。胁迫不能作为谋杀的抗辩，且如果被告自愿与罪犯来往，抗辩可能不成立。
Necessity is narrowly applied, most famously in medical cases like Re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins) (2000). The three requirements are: the act must be done to avoid inevitable and irreparable evil, no more harm must be done than is reasonably necessary, and the evil inflicted must not be disproportionate to the evil avoided.
紧急避险的适用非常狭窄，最著名的案例是连体婴案 Re A (Children) (2000)。三个要件：行为是为了避免不可避免且不可补救的恶害，造成的损害不能超过合理必要的限度，所造成的恶害与避免的恶害之间不能不成比例。
Memory phrase for duress: 'D for death threat and D for duress'. For necessity, think 'necessary to avoid greater evil'.
胁迫的记忆口诀：“D 代表 death threat（死亡威胁）和 duress（胁迫）”。紧急避险则想“为避免更大祸害而必要”。
5. Involuntary Manslaughter: Unlawful Act and Gross Negligence | 非自愿杀人：非法行为与重大过失
Involuntary manslaughter occurs where a death is caused without the mens rea for murder. The two main forms are unlawful act manslaughter (also called constructive manslaughter) and gross negligence manslaughter.
非自愿杀人指在没有谋杀犯意的情况下造成死亡。两种主要形式是非法行为杀人（也称推定杀人）和重大过失杀人。
Unlawful act manslaughter requires: the defendant intentionally committed an unlawful act, the act was objectively dangerous (carrying the risk of some harm), and it caused the death. The classic case is R v Church (1966).
非法行为杀人要件：被告故意实施了非法行为，该行为客观上具有危险性（带有造成某种伤害的风险），并且该行为导致了死亡。经典案例是 R v Church (1966)。
Gross negligence manslaughter needs a duty of care, a breach of that duty that caused death, and the breach was so gross as to amount to a crime. R v Adomako (1994) sets the test.
重大过失杀人需要有注意义务、违反了该义务并导致死亡，且该违反行为极度重大以至于构成犯罪。R v Adomako (1994) 确立了判断标准。
nk of a dangerous unlawful act like arson or assault. Gross negligence = think of a doctor's extreme carelessness. Both lack intent to kill but result in death.
非法行为 = 联想到纵火或袭击这类危险非法行为。重大过失 = 联想到医生极端疏忽。两者均无杀人意图却造成死亡。
6. Non-fatal Offences: Assault, Battery, ABH, GBH | 非致命罪行：殴打、袭击、实际身体伤害、严重身体伤害
These offences are layered by seriousness. Assault is causing the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful force — no touching required. Battery is the actual infliction of unlawful force.
这些罪行按严重程度分层。袭击（assault）是使受害者害怕即将遭受非法武力——无需实际接触。殴打（battery）是实际施加非法武力。
Actual bodily harm (ABH) under s.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 requires assault or battery that causes 'some hurt or injury calculated to interfere with health or comfort'. Case: R v Miller (1954).
实际身体伤害（ABH）依据 1861 年侵害人身罪法案第 47 条，要求袭击或殴打造成了“某种旨在干扰健康或舒适的伤害或损伤”。案例：R v Miller (1954)。
Grievous bodily harm (GBH) under s.20 is malicious wounding or inflicting GBH; s.18 is wounding or causing GBH with intent. GBH means 'really serious harm' (DPP v Smith (1961)).
严重身体伤害（GBH）依据第 20 条是恶意伤人；第 18 条是故意伤人并造成 GBH。GBH 指“真正严重的伤害”（DPP v Smith (1961)）。
B (battery) → ABH (some injury) → GBH (really serious). Remember the ladder of non-fatals.
记忆递进量表：A（害怕）→ B（殴打）→ ABH（一些伤害）→ GBH（真正严重）。记住这架“非致命阶梯”。
7. Theft and Robbery | 盗窃与抢劫
Theft, defined in s.1 Theft Act 1968, is the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. Five elements: appropriation, property, belonging to another, dishonesty, intention to permanently deprive.
盗窃，依据 1968 年盗窃法第 1 条，指不诚实地挪用属于他人的财产，并意图永久剥夺他人对该财产的权利。五个要素：挪用、财产、属于他人、不诚实、永久剥夺的意图。
Robbery is theft aggravated by the use or threat of force immediately before or at the time of stealing (s.8 Theft Act 1968). Think of it as 'forceful theft'. If the force is only used to escape after the theft is complete, it is not robbery.
抢劫是盗窃的加重形态，即在盗窃前或盗窃当时使用武力或威胁使用武力（1968 年盗窃法第 8 条）。可将其想成“暴力盗窃”。如果武力仅用于盗窃完成后逃跑，则不构成抢劫。
+ force. Learn dishonesty test from Ivey v Genting Casinos (2017): what was the defendant' state of mind, and was that dishonest according to the standards of ordinary decent people?
记忆：盗窃 = 五指测试（五要素）。抢劫 = 盗窃 + 武力。掌握 Ivey v Genting Casinos (2017) 确立的不诚实测试：被告的实际主观状态是什么，按照普通正派人士的标准，这是否属于不诚实？
8. Negligence and the Duty of Care | 过失与注意义务
Negligence in tort requires three elements: a duty of care owed by the defendant to the claimant, breach of that duty, and causation of damage not too remote. The modern duty test comes from Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990): foreseeability, proximity, and whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty.
侵权法中的过失需三个要件：被告对原告负有注意义务，违反了该义务，并造成了并非过于遥远的损害。现代注意义务标准源自 Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990)：可预见性、紧密性，以及施加义务是否公平、公正且合理。
Breach is assessed using the objective standard of the reasonable person, with adjustments for special skills, children, and emergencies. Causation uses the 'but for' test and the concept of remoteness — damage must be of a kind that was reasonably foreseeable.
违反义务用客观的理性人标准评判，并根据专业技能、儿童和紧急情况进行调节。因果关系采用“若非”测试和遥远性概念——损害必须是合理可预见的那类损害。
Helpful acronym: DOC (duty) – B (breach) – C (causation) – R (remoteness). Never forget to apply Caparo for novel duty situations.
助记缩写：DOC（义务）– B（违反）– C（因果关系）– R（遥远性）。在新型义务情境下千万要记得适用 Caparo 三要件。
9. Occupiers’ Liability | 占用人责任
Occupiers' liability arises from two statutes: the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 (lawful visitors) and the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 (trespassers). The occupier owes a common duty of care to visitors to take such care as is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe.
占用人责任源于两部法律：1957 年占用人责任法（合法访客）和 1984 年占用人责任法（侵入者）。占用人对访客负有普遍注意义务，即采取合理措施确保访客处于合理安全状态。
For trespassers, a duty exists only if the occupier is aware of the danger, knows a trespasser might come into the vicinity, and it is reasonable to expect the occupier to offer some protection. Case: Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council (2003) — no duty was owed to a diver in a lake because the risk arose from what the trespasser chose to do, not the state of the premises.
对于侵入者，只有在占用人意识到危险的存在，知道侵入者可能进入该区域，并且合理期待占用人提供一些保护时，才会产生责任。案例：Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council (2003) ——跳湖者不受保护，因为风险源于侵入者自己的行为而非场所状况。
Memory: 1957 Act protects 'visitors you invite'; 1984 Act gives 'some protection to trespassers but much less'. Link the years to their function.
记忆：1957 年法保护“你邀请的访客”；1984 年法给“侵入者提供很少保护”。将年份与其功能挂钩。
10. Contract Formation: Offer and Acceptance | 合同成立：要约与承诺
A contract requires offer, acceptance, consideration, and an intention to create legal relations. An offer is a clear statement of willingness to be bound by terms, which becomes binding upon acceptance. It must be distinguished from an invitation to treat, which is merely an invitation to negotiate (e.g., goods on display: Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (1953)).
合同需要约、承诺、对价和创设法律关系的意图。要约是明确表示愿意受条款约束的声明，一旦被承诺即产生约束力。必须与要约邀请区分，后者仅仅是谈判邀请（如陈列商品：Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (1953)）。
Acceptance must mirror the offer (the 'mirror image rule') and be communicated to the offeror. Silence cannot constitute acceptance (Felthouse v Bindley (1862)). The postal rule states that acceptance by post takes effect at the moment of posting.
承诺必须与要约完全一致（“镜像规则”），并传达给要约人。沉默不构成承诺（Felthouse v Bindley (1862)）。邮寄规则规定，邮寄承诺在投邮时即生效。
Memorise the sequence: Offer – t. Then add Consideration and Intention. Remember ITT (invitation to treat) does not bind.
记住顺序：要约 – 承诺 = 合意。然后加上对价和意图。记住要约邀请（ITT）没有约束力。
11. Consideration | 对价
Consideration is the price one party pays for the other's promise — something of value in the eyes of the law, which makes the agreement a bargain. It must move from the promisee, but it need not be adequate (it can be a peppercorn).
对价是一方为换取对方的承诺而支付的代价——即法律眼中具有价值的东西，使协议成为交易。对价必须由受诺人提供，但无需是充分的（可以只是一粒胡椒）。
Past consideration is not valid consideration (Re McArdle (1951)). However, performance of an existing duty cannot be consideration for a new promise unless it provides a practical benefit (Williams v Roffey Bros (1991)).
过去的对价不是有效对价（Re McArdle (1951)）。然而，履行既有义务一般不能作为新承诺的对价，除非它提供了实际利益（Williams v Roffey Bros (1991)）。
Think of consideration as the 'price tag' on a promise. If there is no consideration, you might need promissory estoppel, but that is a shield not a sword (Central London Property Trust v High Trees House (1947)).
把对价想象成承诺上的“价格标签”。如果没有对价，可能需要援引允诺禁反言，但那只能是盾牌而非利剑（Central London Property Trust v High Trees House (1947)）。
12. Misrepresentation | 虚假陈述
A misrepresentation is a false statement of material fact made by one party to the contract that induces the other party to enter into it. It must be a statement of fact, not mere opinion or sales puff. The three types are innocent, negligent, and fraudulent misrepresentation.
虚假陈述是合同一方当事人向另一方作出的、诱使对方订立合同的不实重要事实陈述。必须是事实陈述，而非单纯意见或商业吹嘘。三种类型：无辜、疏忽和欺诈性虚假陈述。
Remedies vary: innocent misrepresentation can lead to rescission or damages in lieu under s.2(2) Misrepresentation Act 1967; negligent misrepresentation allows damages under s.2(1); fraudulent misrepresentation (common law tort of deceit) allows rescission and damages for all direct loss.
救济方式各异：无辜虚假陈述可导致撤销或根据 1967 年虚假陈述法第 2(2) 条以损害赔偿代替；疏忽虚假陈述可按第 2(1) 条主张损害赔偿；欺诈性虚假陈述（普通法上的欺骗侵权）可撤销合同并赔偿所有直接损失。
Link the 'M' of misrepresentation to 'material fact'. A phrase to remember: 'silence is not a misrepresentation' unless there is a duty of utmost good faith or a half-truth.
将虚假陈述的“M”与“material fact”（重要事实）关联。记住口诀：“沉默不是虚假陈述”，除非存在最大诚信义务或半真半假的陈述。
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