📚 A-Level Eduqas Law: Vocabulary & Terminology Quick-Memorisation Guide | A-Level Eduqas 法律：词汇术语速记指南
Legal terminology can feel like a foreign language when you first encounter it. This guide breaks down the most critical terms across criminal law, tort, contract, and the English legal system, pairing clear English explanations with parallel Chinese translations and memory aids. Mastering these terms is not just about passing exams — it is the foundation of thinking like a lawyer.
初学法律时，专业术语就像一门全新的语言。本指南涵盖刑法、侵权法、合同法和英国法律制度中最关键的词汇，为每个术语提供清晰的英文解释、中文对照和记忆技巧。掌握这些术语不仅是为了通过考试，更是培养法律思维的基础。
1. Core Criminal Law Terms: Actus Reus & Mens Rea | 刑法核心术语：犯罪行为与犯罪意图
Actus reus refers to the 'guilty act' — the physical element of a crime. It can be an act, an omission (where a duty to act exists), or a state of affairs. For liability, the actus reus must be voluntary.
Actus reus 指“犯罪行为”，即犯罪的客观要件。它可以是作为、不作为（当存在作为义务时）或特定状态。要构成责任，行为必须是自愿的。
Mens rea is the 'guilty mind' — the mental element. The main types are intention (direct or oblique), recklessness (Cunningham subjective test: did the defendant foresee the risk and take it anyway?), and negligence. For strict liability offences, no mens rea is required.
Mens rea 指“犯罪意图”，即主观要件。主要类型包括故意（直接或间接）、轻率（Cunningham主观标准：被告是否预见到风险而仍然为之？）和过失。对于严格责任犯罪，不需要犯罪意图。
- Memory tip: Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea — 'an act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty.'
- 记忆技巧： Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea——“行为本身不构成犯罪，除非内心有罪。”
2. Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person | 非致命人身侵害犯罪
Assault: causing the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence. No physical contact needed — words alone can suffice. Battery: the actual infliction of unlawful personal force, even a touch. These are common law offences under s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988.
Assault（恐吓攻击）：使受害人担心即将遭受非法暴力，不需要身体接触，言语即可构成。Battery（殴打）：实际施加非法暴力，哪怕只是触碰。两者都是1988年《刑事司法法》第39条规定的普通法犯罪。
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) under s.47 OAPA 1861: assault or battery that causes hurt calculated to interfere with health or comfort. The mens rea is the same as for assault or battery — no need to intend the harm.
第47条《1861年侵害人身罪法》规定的造成实际身体伤害的袭击（ABH）：袭击或殴打导致伤害，该伤害足以影响健康或舒适。犯罪意图与袭击或殴打相同——不需要意图造成伤害。
GBH (grievous bodily harm) under s.20 (malicious wounding/inflicting GBH) and s.18 (wounding/causing GBH with intent). s.20 requires recklessness as to some harm; s.18 requires specific intent to cause GBH or resist arrest. Use the mnemonic: 's.18 is the serious one with intent'.
第20条（恶意伤人/造成严重身体伤害）和第18条（意图造成严重身体伤害或拒捕）规定的GBH（严重身体伤害）。第20条要求对某些伤害具有轻率；第18条要求意图造成严重身体伤害或拒捕。记忆口诀：'s.18 是带有意图的严重条款'。
| Offence | Actus Reus | Mens Rea |
|---|---|---|
| Assault | Causing apprehension of violence | Intention or recklessness |
| Battery | Infliction of unlawful force | Intention or recklessness |
| s.47 ABH | Assault/battery causing harm | Same as assault/battery |
| s.20 GBH | Wounding/inflicting GBH | Recklessness as to some harm |
| s.18 GBH | Wounding/causing GBH | Specific intent to cause GBH |
3. Property Offences: Theft, Robbery, Burglary | 财产犯罪：盗窃、抢劫、入室盗窃
Theft is defined in s.1 Theft Act 1968: 'dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it'. Key mens rea terms: dishonesty (s.2 exceptions), intention to permanently deprive. Actus reus: appropriation, property, belonging to another.
盗窃罪由1968年《盗窃法》第1条定义：“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”。关键主观术语：不诚实（第2条例外）、永久剥夺意图。客观要件：占有、财产、属于他人。
Robbery (s.8): theft with the use or threat of force immediately before or at the time of the theft, and done in order to steal. The force must be directed against any person. Remember: no theft, no robbery.
抢劫（第8条）：盗窃时或盗窃之前立即使用或威胁使用武力，并且为了盗窃而这样做。武力必须针对任何人。记住：无盗窃，不构成抢劫。
Burglary (s.9): there are two types — entering any building or part of a building as a trespasser with intent to steal, inflict GBH, or do unlawful damage (s.9(1)(a)); or, having entered as a trespasser, actually stealing or inflicting GBH (s.9(1)(b)). The entry must be 'effective' per Ryan.
入室盗窃（第9条）：有两种类型——作为非法侵入者进入任何建筑物或其部分，意图盗窃、造成严重身体伤害或非法损坏（第9(1)(a)条）；或作为非法侵入者进入后，实际盗窃或造成严重身体伤害（第9(1)(b)条）。根据Ryan案，进入必须是“有效的”。
4. General Defences in Criminal Law | 刑法一般抗辩
Duress: committing a crime because of a threat of death or serious injury. Key elements: threat must come from a person, directed against D or immediate family, and there must be no reasonable avenue of escape (Graham). Duress is not available for murder or attempted murder. The mnemonic 'TIDE' helps: Threat of death/serious injury, Immediate, Directed at self/family, no Escape.
胁迫：因受到死亡或严重伤害的威胁而犯罪。关键要素：威胁必须来自某人，针对被告或其直系亲属，且无合理的逃避途径（Graham案）。胁迫不适用于谋杀或谋杀未遂。助记“TIDE”：Threat（死亡/重伤威胁）、Immediate（紧迫）、Directed at self/family（针对自己/家人）、no Escape（无法逃避）。
Necessity: not strictly a defence but sometimes a justification where the defendant acted to prevent a greater evil. The test from Dudley & Stephens and Re A (conjoined twins) is strict: act done only to avoid inevitable and irreparable evil, proportionate, and no alternative.
必要性：严格来说不是抗辩，而是一种正当化事由，即被告为避免更大危害而行事。根据Dudley & Stephens案和Re A（连体婴案），检验标准严格：行为仅为避免不可避免且不可弥补的损害，合乎比例，且无其他选择。
Self-defence: a person may use reasonable force to defend themselves, others, or property, or to prevent crime. The force must be necessary and proportionate as D honestly believed the circumstances to be (Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008). Create a mental image: 'honest instinctive reaction' — disproportionate force is not reasonable.
自卫：个人可以使用合理武力保护自己、他人或财产，或防止犯罪。武力必须是必要的，且根据被告诚实相信的情况是相称的（2008年《刑事司法与移民法》）。建立心理画面：“诚实的本能反应”——不相称的武力是不合理的。
5. Tort Law: Negligence – Duty of Care & Breach | 侵权法：过失——注意义务与违反
Negligence requires: duty of care, breach of that duty, causation, and damage. The three-part Caparo test for duty: foreseeability of harm, proximity between claimant and defendant, and fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty.
过失侵权需满足：注意义务、违反义务、因果关系和损害。Caparo案确立的注意义务三步检验：损害的可预见性、原告与被告之间的近邻关系，以及施加义务的公平、公正和合理性。
Breach: the standard is the reasonable person (Blyth). Special standards apply: professionals must meet the standard of a reasonably competent member of the profession (Bolam; modified by Montgomery for medical disclosure). Risk factors: likelihood of harm (Bolton v Stone), seriousness of harm (Paris v Stepney), cost of precautions (Latimer). Use the mnemonic 'LSCUP': Likelihood, Seriousness, Cost, Utility of D's activity, and Precautions that were reasonable.
违反义务：标准是合理人（Blyth案）。特殊标准适用：专业人士必须达到该行业合理称职成员的标准（Bolam案；医疗告知方面被Montgomery案修改）。风险因素：损害发生的可能性（Bolton v Stone）、损害的严重性（Paris v Stepney）、预防措施的成本（Latimer案）。用助记“LSCUP”：Likelihood（可能性）、Seriousness（严重性）、Cost（成本）、Utility of D's activity（被告行为的社会效用）、Precautions taken（已采取的预防措施）。
6. Tort Law: Causation & Remoteness | 侵权法：因果关系与损害的遥远性
Causation has two limbs: factual causation (the 'but for' test: Barnett) and legal causation (the breach must be the 'operating and substantial cause'; novus actus interveniens can break the chain). An intervening act must be unforeseeable and independent.
因果关系分为两个层面：事实因果关系（“若不是”检验：Barnett案）和法律因果关系（违反义务必须是“有效和实质性的原因”；新的介入行为会打断因果链）。介入行为必须不可预见且独立。
Remoteness of damage: the type of damage must be reasonably foreseeable (Wagon Mound). If the type is foreseeable, the exact extent need not be. The 'egg-shell skull' rule means you take the victim as you find them — pre-existing vulnerabilities do not break the chain.
损害的遥远性：损害类型必须是合理可预见的（Wagon Mound案）。如果损害类型可预见，具体程度不必预见。“蛋壳脑袋”规则意味着必须接受受害人的既有状况——先天的脆弱性不会打断因果链。
- Memory aid: 'But for' — imagine erasing the defendant's actions from the timeline; if the harm would still happen, no causation.
- 记忆技巧： “若不是”——想象从时间线上抹去被告的行为；如果损害仍会发生，那就不存在因果关系。
7. Contract Law: Formation – Offer & Acceptance | 合同法：合同成立——要约与承诺
An offer is an expression of willingness to contract on stated terms, made with the intention that it becomes binding upon acceptance. Distinguished from an invitation to treat (e.g., goods on display, advertisements). Key cases: Pharmaceutical Society v Boots, Partridge v Crittenden, Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball (unilateral offer).
要约是指以明确条款表明愿意订立合同，并意图一经承诺即受约束的意思表示。与要约邀请（如商品陈列、广告）相区别。关键案例：Pharmaceutical Society v Boots（自助购物）、Partridge v Crittenden（广告）、Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball（单方要约）。
Acceptance must be a mirror image of the offer, communicated effectively (except in unilateral contracts or postal rule). Postal rule: acceptance is effective when the letter is posted, not when received (Adams v Lindsell). But it does not apply to instantaneous methods or when expressly excluded.
承诺必须是要约的镜像，有效传达（单方合同或邮寄规则除外）。邮寄规则：承诺在信件投递时生效，而非收到时（Adams v Lindsell案）。但不适用于即时通讯方式或当规则被明确排除时。
Consideration: the price for which the promise is bought. Must move from the promisee, need not be adequate but must be sufficient. Past consideration is not good consideration (Re McArdle), but exceptions exist under Pao On. Mnemonic: 'MFS' — Move from promisee, sufficient not adequate, Past is invalid.
对价：换取允诺的代价。必须由受诺人提供，无需对等但必须充分。过去的对价不是有效对价（Re McArdle案），但存在例外（Pao On案）。助记“MFS”：Move from promisee（来自受诺人）、sufficient not adequate（充分但无需等值）、Past is not valid（过去对价无效）。
8. The English Legal System: Judicial Precedent | 英国法律制度：司法先例
Stare decisis ('stand by what has been decided') is the doctrine binding courts to follow previous decisions. Ratio decidendi is the legal reasoning necessary for the decision — this binds lower courts. Obiter dicta are things said 'by the way' and are persuasive only.
遵循先例（stare decisis，即“坚持已决之事”）原则要求法院受先前判决的约束。判决理由（ratio decidendi）是达成判决所必需的法律推理——对下级法院具有约束力。附带意见（obiter dicta）是“顺带说的话”，仅具有说服力。
Court hierarchy: Supreme Court binds all lower courts but not itself (since 1966 Practice Statement). Court of Appeal binds its own divisions (subject to Young exceptions). High Court binds lower courts but not its own division. Distinguishing, overriding, and reversing are techniques to avoid precedent.
法院层级：最高法院约束所有下级法院，但自1966年实践声明后不约束自己。上诉法院约束本庭（但有Young例外）。高等法院约束下级法院但不约束本庭。区别（distinguish）、推翻（overrule）和撤销（reverse）是规避先例的技巧。
For exams, always identify the ratio and explain whether a case is binding or persuasive. Useful phrase: 'Following the doctrine of stare decisis, the court is bound by the ratio decidendi of...'
考试时，务必识别判决理由并说明案例是具有约束力还是说服力。有用句式：“根据遵循先例原则，法院受……判决理由的约束……”
9. Human Rights Act 1998 & Key Terms | 1998年《人权法》及关键术语
Section 2: courts must 'take into account' Strasbourg jurisprudence. Section 3: primary legislation must be read and given effect in a way compatible with Convention rights 'so far as it is possible to do so'. Section 4: a declaration of incompatibility can be made if a compatible interpretation is impossible; this does not affect the validity of the Act.
第2条：法院必须“考虑”斯特拉斯堡的判例。第3条：基本立法必须在“尽可能的范围内”以与公约权利相兼容的方式解读和赋予效力。第4条：如果无法作出兼容解释，可作出不一致宣告；这不影响该法案的有效性。
Convention rights frequently examined: Article 2 (right to life), Article 5 (liberty), Article 8 (private and family life), Article 10 (expression), Article 11 (assembly). The proportionality test is crucial: was the interference prescribed by law, necessary in a democratic society, and proportionate?
常考察的公约权利：第2条（生命权）、第5条（自由权）、第8条（隐私和家庭生活）、第10条（表达自由）、第11条（集会自由）。比例性检验至关重要：干预是否依法规定、是否在民主社会中必要，以及是否相称？
- Memory aid for HRA s.2,3,4: 'TID' — Take into account (s.2), Interpret compatibly (s.3), Declare incompatible (s.4).
- 记忆技巧： 人权法第2、3、4条——“TID”：Take into account（考虑）、Interpret compatibly（兼容解释）、Declare incompatible（宣告不一致）。
10. Mnemonics & Memory Systems for Law | 法律助记法与记忆系统
Create vivid mental images for legal tests. For the Caparo three-stage test: picture 'Fore' — a golfer (foreseeability) standing next to a 'Pro' (proximity) who hands him a 'Fair, Just & Reasonable' medal. For s.47/s.20/s.18 OAPA: imagine a ladder — s.47 at bottom (assault + some harm), s.20 in middle (intent/recklessness to cause 'some harm'), s.18 at top (intent for GBH).
为法律检验标准创造生动的心理图像。Caparo三步检验：想象'Fore' —— 一个高尔夫球手（foreseeability可预见性）站在'Pro'（proximity近邻关系）旁边，后者递给他一枚“公平、公正、合理”奖牌。OAPA第47/20/18条：想象一把梯子——第47条在底层（袭击+一些伤害），第20条在中间（意图/轻率造成“一些伤害”），第18条在顶端（意图造成严重身体伤害）。
For negligence risk factors: 'LSCUP' can be visualised as a 'Life Cup' — imagining a cup overflowing with factors. For theft: use the mnemonic 'DAPPER' (Dishonestly Appropriate Property Permanently depriving another). For definitions in contract: 'OBAF' (Offer Binding on Acceptance communicated, plus consideration).
关于过失风险因素：'LSCUP'可以形象化为“生命之杯”——想象一只装满各种因素的杯子。对于盗窃：使用助记'DAPPER'（Dishonestly Appropriates Property Permanently depriving another）。合同法定义：'OBAF'（Offer Binding on Acceptance as communicated，要约经承诺传达后生效）。
Active recall: write the term on one side of a flashcard and the key elements on the other. Test yourself daily, then space out revision. Teaching the terms to someone else is one of the most powerful memorisation techniques.
主动回忆：在抽认卡的一面写下术语，另一面写下关键要素。每天自测，然后间隔开复习。向他人讲授术语是最有效的记忆技巧之一。
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