📚 Year 9 CIE Law: Quick Reference Handbook of Legal Formulae & Principles | CIE Year 9 法律：法律公式与原则速查手册
This handbook distils key legal principles into clear, formula-like statements to support your CIE Year 9 Law revision. Use it to memorise the essential elements of crimes, torts and contracts, and to understand how courts build arguments from fixed building blocks.
本手册将核心法律原则提炼成清晰的公式化陈述，帮助你复习 CIE Year 9 法律课程。用它记住犯罪、侵权和合同的必备要素，并理解法院如何用固定的“积木”搭建论证。
1. Actus Reus & Mens Rea | 犯罪行为与犯罪意图
The foundation of criminal liability: Guilty act + Guilty mind = Crime (subject to strict liability exceptions). Actus reus can be an act, an omission (where a duty exists) or a state of affairs; mens rea is usually intention, recklessness or negligence.
刑事责任的基础：犯罪行为 + 犯罪意图 = 犯罪（严格责任犯罪除外）。犯罪行为可以是作为、不作为（当存在法律义务时）或事态；犯罪意图通常指故意、轻率或过失。
The actus reus must be voluntary; automatism (e.g. being stung by a swarm of bees while driving) negates voluntariness. The mens rea must coincide with the actus reus in time – the 'contemporaneity rule'.
犯罪行为必须是自愿的；自动症（例如开车时被一群蜜蜂蜇伤）会否定自愿性。犯罪意图在时间上必须与犯罪行为重合——这就是“同时性原则”。
2. Causation | 因果关系
To establish causation, the prosecution must prove both factual causation and legal causation. Factual causation asks: 'But for the defendant's act, would the result have occurred?' (the 'but for' test).
要确立因果关系，控方必须同时证明事实因果关系和法律因果关系。事实因果关系问的是：“若非被告的行为，结果会发生吗？”（“若非”检验）。
Legal causation requires that the defendant's act was an operating and substantial cause of the prohibited consequence. It need not be the sole cause. An intervening act (novus actus interveniens) may break the chain of causation, but only if it is free, deliberate and informed.
法律因果关系要求被告的行为是造成禁止性后果的有效且实质的原因，不必是唯一原因。介入行为（新介入行为）可能中断因果链，但仅当该行为是自由、故意且知情时才可中断。
3. Omissions — When a Duty to Act Arises | 不作为——何时产生作为义务
An omission counts as actus reus only where the law imposes a duty to act. Six key scenarios: statutory duty, contractual duty, relationship duty (parent–child), voluntary assumption of care, creation of a dangerous situation, and continuing act.
只有在法律规定了作为义务时，不作为才构成犯罪行为。六种关键情形：法定义务、合同义务、亲属关系义务（父母与子女）、自愿承担照顾责任、制造危险状态，以及持续性行为。
For example, a police officer owes a public duty, and a person who starts a fire has a duty to take reasonable steps to extinguish it. Merely witnessing a crime without a legal duty is not an omission.
例如，警察负有公共职责，而引发火灾者有义务采取合理措施灭火。仅是目睹犯罪而没有法律义务，不属于不作为。
4. Strict Liability | 严格责任
Strict liability offences require actus reus only; they do not need proof of mens rea as to at least one element of the offence. They are typically regulatory or social concern crimes, such as food hygiene violations or driving without insurance.
严格责任犯罪仅要求犯罪行为；至少对犯罪的某一要素无需证明犯罪意图。这类犯罪通常是监管类或社会关切型犯罪，如违反食品卫生或未买保险驾驶。
The presumption of mens rea applies at common law, but it can be displaced by statute if the wording is clear and the offence is regulatory. The defence of due diligence is often available, shifting the burden to the defendant.
普通法上存在犯罪意图推定，但若制定法措辞明确且犯罪属于监管类型，则可推翻该推定。尽职审慎抗辩通常可用，举证责任转移至被告。
5. Negligence — Duty, Breach, Damage | 过失侵权——义务、违反、损害
The tort of negligence requires three elements: (i) a duty of care owed by the defendant to the claimant; (ii) a breach of that duty; and (iii) damage caused by the breach that is not too remote.
过失侵权需具备三个要素：（i）被告对原告负有注意义务；（ii）违反了该义务；（iii）因该违反行为造成非过于遥远的损害。
Duty is established by the neighbour principle (Donoghue v Stevenson): you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that you can reasonably foresee would injure your neighbour. Breach is judged by the standard of the reasonable person; factors include the probability of harm, seriousness of risk, cost of precautions and social utility.
注意义务依据邻人原则（Donoghue v Stevenson）确立：你必须采取合理注意，避免那些可合理预见会伤害邻人的作为或不作为。违反则以理性人之标准判断；考量因素包括损害发生概率、风险严重性、预防成本及社会效益。
6. Elements of a Valid Contract | 有效合同的要素
A legally binding contract generally requires: offer, acceptance, consideration, intention to create legal relations, and certainty of terms. The formula Offer + Acceptance = Agreement is the starting point.
具有法律约束力的合同通常要求：要约、承诺、约因、建立法律关系的意图和条款确定性。公式要约 + 承诺 = 协议是起点。
An offer is a definite promise to be bound on specific terms; an invitation to treat (e.g. goods on a shelf) is not an offer. Acceptance must mirror the offer (mirror image rule) and be communicated. Consideration is the 'price' of the promise; it must move from the promisee but need not be adequate.
要约是对特定条款的明确受约束承诺；要约邀请（如货架上的商品）不是要约。承诺必须与要约完全一致（镜像规则）并传达到位。约因是允诺的“代价”；必须来自受允诺人，但不必是充分对价。
7. Misrepresentation | 虚假陈述
A misrepresentation is a false statement of fact (not opinion) made by one contracting party to another, which induces the other party to enter the contract. It renders the contract voidable.
虚假陈述系合同一方向另一方作出的不真实事实陈述（非意见），并诱使另一方订立合同。这会使合同成为可撤销合同。
Three types: fraudulent (knowingly or recklessly false), negligent (carelessly false in breach of a duty of care), and innocent (false but with reasonable grounds for belief). Remedies vary: rescission is available for all types, and damages are available for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation.
三种类型：欺诈性（明知或轻率地虚假）、过失性（因过失而虚假，违反注意义务）和无辜性（虚假但有合理相信依据）。救济各有不同：所有类型均可撤销合同，欺诈性和过失性虚假陈述可索赔损失。
8. Criminal Defences: Insanity (M'Naghten Rules) | 刑事抗辩：精神失常（M'Naghten 规则）
The M'Naghten Rules require proof that the defendant was labouring under a defect of reason, caused by a disease of the mind, so that they either did not know the nature and quality of the act, or did not know it was wrong.
M'Naghten 规则要求证明被告因精神疾病导致理性缺陷，以至于他们要么不知道行为的性质和本质，要么不知道行为是错误的。
The defect of reason must be total; if the defendant merely fails to use reasoning powers, the defence fails. 'Disease of the mind' is a legal term, not medical, and includes internal conditions such as epilepsy and arteriosclerosis.
理性缺陷必须是完全的；如果被告只是未能使用推理能力，则抗辩不成立。“精神疾病”是法律术语而非医学术语，包括癫痫、动脉硬化等内部状况。
9. Criminal Defences: Self-Defence & Reasonable Force | 刑事抗辩：自卫与合理武力
Self-defence is available where the defendant honestly believed that the use of force was necessary and the force used was reasonable in the circumstances. This applies to defence of oneself, another, or property.
自卫抗辩适用于：被告诚实地相信使用武力是必要的，并且所使用的武力在当时情况下是合理的。这适用于防卫自身、他人或财产。
The belief need not be reasonable, but the more unreasonable the belief, the less likely the force will be judged reasonable. The jury considers the danger as the defendant honestly believed it to be, and then evaluates whether the response was proportionate.
该相信不必是合理的，但相信越不合理，武力就越不可能被认定为合理。陪审团以被告诚实地认为是危险的情形加以审视，再评估反应是否相称。
10. Murder | 谋杀
Murder is the unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being under the Queen's (or King's) Peace, with malice aforethought. The actus reus of murder = unlawful killing + human being + under the Queen's Peace.
谋杀系在有预谋的恶意下，非法杀害处于女王（或国王）和平之下的有生命之理性生物。谋杀的犯罪行为 = 非法杀害 + 人类 + 处于女王和平之下。
Malice aforethought (mens rea) means either an intention to kill or an intention to cause grievous bodily harm (GBH). This is often tested as: Intent to kill + Intent to cause GBH = Malice aforethought.
预谋恶意（犯罪意图）指意图杀人或意图造成严重身体伤害。这常被表述为：杀人意图 + 造成严重身体伤害意图 = 预谋恶意。
11. Theft | 盗窃
Theft is defined by s.1 Theft Act 1968: A person is guilty of theft if they dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. The actus reus elements: appropriation, property, belonging to another.
盗窃依据《1968年盗窃罪法》第1条定义：如果一个人不诚实地挪占属于他人的财产，并怀有永久剥夺他人财产的意图，即构成盗窃罪。犯罪行为要素：挪占、财产、属于他人。
Mens rea elements: dishonesty (assessed by the Ivey test: was the conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people? Did the defendant realise this?) and intention to permanently deprive (including treating the property as one's own regardless of the owner's rights).
犯罪意图要素：不诚实性（依据 Ivey 检验判断：按照普通正直人的标准，行为是否不诚实？被告是否意识到这一点？）和永久剥夺意图（包括不顾原权利人权利而自行处置财产）。
12. Assault and Battery | 企图伤害与殴击
An assault is an act which causes the victim to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force. The actus reus typically involves some act (words or gestures); mens rea is intention or recklessness as to causing apprehension.
企图伤害是使被害人担心即将遭受非法武力的行为。犯罪行为通常涉及某种举动（言语或手势）；犯罪意图为故意或轻率地引起担心。
A battery is the actual infliction of unlawful force on another. It requires an intentional or reckless application of unlawful force, without consent. Both assault and battery are summary offences if tried in the magistrates' court.
殴击是对他人实际施加非法武力的行为。它要求故意或轻率地施加非法武力，且未获同意。若在治安法院审理，二者皆为简易程序罪。
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