📚 Year 10 Edexcel Law: Formula & Principle Quick Reference | Year 10 Edexcel 法律：公式定理速查手册
In Edexcel Law, there are no mathematical equations, but legal tests and principles work like formulas. You must learn fixed structures of elements, definitions and case-derived tests to analyse scenarios and determine liability. This handbook gathers the most essential 'formulas' for Year 10, covering criminal, tort, contract and human rights law, with clear English–Chinese paired explanations to support quick revision and bilingual understanding.
在Edexcel法律课程中虽然没有数学公式，但有一系列法律检验标准和原则，就像公式一样需要牢记。你必须掌握犯罪构成要素、侵权责任检验、合同成立要件等固定结构，才能在案例分析中准确判断责任。本手册汇编了Year 10阶段最关键的法律'公式定理'，涵盖刑法、侵权法、合同法及人权法，并采用英中对照讲解，助力快速复习和双语理解。
1. Criminal Liability Formula | 刑事责任公式
s (guilty act) + Mens Rea (guilty mind) + Absence of a valid defence = Criminal Liability.
绝大多数犯罪的通用公式为：犯罪行为（actus reus）+ 犯罪意图（mens rea）+ 无有效抗辩理由 = 刑事责任。
Actus Reus + Mens Rea − Defence = Guilt
Actus reus can be a positive act, a qualifying omission, or a state of affairs, and must be voluntary on the part of the defendant.
犯罪行为可以是积极作为、符合条件的消极不作为，或者某种事态，且必须是被告人自愿实施的。
Mens rea encompasses intention (direct or oblique), recklessness (subjective foresight of a risk), and for some crimes, negligence or knowledge. The exact mens rea depends on the offence.
犯罪意图涵盖蓄意（直接或间接）、轻率（主观预见风险），个别犯罪还涉及疏忽或明知。每种罪名的意图要求由法律规定。
Concurrence means the actus reus and mens rea must coincide in time; the guilty mind must drive the guilty act.
同步性要求犯罪行为与犯罪意图在时间上一致，即犯罪意图必须支配犯罪行为的发生。
Valid defences, such as self-defence, duress or insanity, can negate liability even if actus reus and mens rea are present.
即使具备犯罪行为和犯罪意图，有效的抗辩理由（如正当防卫、胁迫或精神错乱）仍可否定刑事责任。
2. Causation: The 'But For' and Legal Cause Tests | 因果关系：‘若无’与法律原因检验
In result crimes, the prosecution must prove both factual and legal causation, linking the defendant's conduct to the prohibited consequence.
在结果犯中，控方必须同时证明事实因果关系和法律因果关系，从而将被告的行为与被禁止的后果联系起来。
Causation = Factual Causation + Legal Causation
Factual causation uses the 'but for' test: but for the defendant's actions, would the result have occurred? If the answer is no, factual causation is established (R v White).
事实因果关系适用‘若无’检验标准：若无被告的行为，该结果是否仍会发生？若答案为否，则事实因果关系成立 (R v White)。
Legal causation requires that the defendant's conduct was the operating and substantial cause of the harm, and that it was more than a minimal cause (R v Pagett).
法律因果关系要求被告的行为是损害的有效重大原因，且不仅仅是微不足道的原因 (R v Pagett)。
An intervening act (novus actus interveniens) can break the chain of causation only if it is a free, voluntary and informed act of a third party or an unforeseeable natural event.
介入行为（新介入行为）仅在系第三方自由、自愿且知情的行为，或不可预见的自然事件时，才能打断因果关系链条。
The defendant must take the victim as they find them, meaning pre-existing conditions do not break causation (the thin skull rule, R v Blaue).
被告人必须接受被害人本身的状态，即被害人原有特殊体质不中断因果关系（薄皮头骨规则，R v Blaue）。
3. Strict Liability Offences | 严格责任犯罪
Strict liability crimes break the standard formula by requiring only actus reus; no mens rea is needed for at least one element of the offence.
严格责任犯罪打破了常规公式，只要求具备犯罪行为；至少就犯罪某一要素而言，无需证明犯罪意图。
Strict Liability = Actus Reus ONLY + No Defence of Due Diligence
These offences are typically regulatory or quasi-criminal, dealing with matters of social concern such as food safety, pollution, or selling alcohol to minors.
此类犯罪通常属于监管性或准刑事性质，涉及食品安全、环境污染、向未成年人售酒等社会关注事项。
Because mens rea is not required, the prosecution does not have to prove the defendant intended or foresaw the prohibited act. The mere fact of the actus reus is enough.
由于不需要犯罪意图，控方无需证明被告故意或预见到被禁止的行为，仅凭犯罪行为的事实即可入罪。
Even if the defendant took all reasonable steps to prevent the harm, a strict liability offence may still be committed; no due diligence defence is available unless expressly provided by statute.
即便被告已尽一切合理努力防止危害发生，仍可能触犯严格责任犯罪；除非法律明确规定，否则不适用尽到勤勉义务的抗辩。
4. Non-Fatal Offences: Assault, Battery, ABH and GBH | 非致命侵害：企图伤害、非法侵犯、实际身体伤害和严重身体伤害
The ladder of non-fatal offences under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 can be remembered with clear element formulas.
《1861年人身侵害法》规定的非致命侵害阶梯可以用清晰的构成要素公式加以记忆。
= Act causing victim to apprehend immediate unlawful violence + Intention or recklessness
Assault requires no physical contact; words alone or silent phone calls can suffice if the victim fears immediate force (R v Ireland).
企图伤害无需身体接触；言语或无声电话只要使被害人产生对即时暴力的恐惧即可构成 (R v Ireland)。
Battery = Unlawful application of force + Intention or recklessness
Battery requires the slightest touching without consent, even touching clothes (Collins v Wilcock).
非法侵犯只需未经同意的轻微接触，包括触碰衣物 (Collins v Wilcock)。
ly Harm (s.47) = Assault or Battery + ABH + Intention or Recklessness as to common assault
ABH includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with health or comfort, including psychiatric harm (R v Chan-Fook).
实际身体伤害包括任何损害健康或舒适程度的伤痛，含精神伤害 (R v Chan-Fook)。
unding or Inflicting GBH (s.20) = Wounding/GBH + Intention or Recklessness as to some harm
or Wounding or Causing GBH with Intent (s.18) = Wounding/GBH + Intention to cause GBH or resist arrest
GBH means really serious harm; wounding means a break in the continuity of the skin. The mens rea escalates from s.47 to s.18.
严重身体伤害指真正严重的伤害；创伤指皮肤连续性的破裂。从第47条到第18条，犯罪意图的要求逐级提高。
5. Theft and Robbery Formula | 盗窃与抢劫公式
The Theft Act 1968 sets out a precise formula for theft, requiring all five elements to be proven simultaneously.
《1968年盗窃法》为盗窃罪规定了精确公式，必须同时满足全部五项要素。
shonest Appropriation + Property + Belonging to Another + Intention to Permanently Deprive
Appropriation includes assuming any rights of the owner, even with consent if obtained by deception (R v Gomez).
侵占包括行使所有者的任何权利，即使取得同意但系因欺骗获得的也不例外 (R v Gomez)。
Property includes money, real property, personal property, things in action and other intangible property, but does not include wild plants or creatures taken for commercial purposes unless tamed.
财产包括货币、不动产、个人财产、权利财产及其他无形财产，但通常不包括非商业目的采摘的野生植物或非驯养的野生动物。
Dishonesty is measured by the standards of ordinary reasonable people, with the awareness that others would regard the conduct as dishonest (Ivey v Genting Casinos).
欺骗性根据一般合理人的标准判断，并需意识到他人会视该行为为不诚实 (Ivey v Genting Casinos)。
Robbery = Theft + Use or Threat of Force immediately before or at the time of stealing
Robbery requires proof of all theft elements plus force or threat of force put to the victim to steal. If theft is incomplete, robbery fails.
抢劫罪必须在证明全部盗窃要素的基础上，另加为实施盗窃而对被害人使用或威胁使用武力。若盗窃未完成，抢劫罪不能成立。
6. Negligence: The Caparo Three-Stage Test | 过失侵权：Caparo 三阶段检验
To establish a duty of care in negligence, courts apply the Caparo test, which acts as a legal formula for novel situations.
要在过失侵权中确立注意义务，法院适用Caparo检验标准，这在新情况中就像法律公式一样运作。
of Care = Foreseeability of Harm + Proximity + Fair, Just and Reasonable to Impose a Duty
Foreseeability asks whether a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have foreseen that their conduct posed a risk of harm to the claimant.
可预见性是指处于被告位置的合理人能否预见到其行为会对请求人构成伤害风险。
Proximity refers to a close and direct relationship of time, space or connection, such as a manufacturer and consumer (Donoghue v Stevenson).
近因关系指在时间、空间或关联上的紧密直接联系，如制造商与消费者之间的邻里关系原则 (Donoghue v Stevenson)。
The court then considers whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty, taking into account policy considerations and floodgates arguments.
法院随后考量施加注意义务是否公平、公正且合理，需顾及政策因素及防止诉讼激增的考量。
Once a duty is established, breach of duty applies the reasonable person standard: the defendant must act as a reasonably competent person in that activity.
注意义务确立后，违反义务采用合理人标准：被告人必须以从事该活动的合理称职者的方式行为。
Causation in negligence adopts the same 'but for' test and legal causation principles used in criminal result crimes.
过失侵权中的因果关系同样采用与刑事结果犯一致的‘若无’检验和法律因果关系原则。
7. Private Nuisance: The Reasonableness Balance | 私人妨害：合理性平衡
Private nuisance is not strict liability but requires a balancing of competing interests, captured by a structured test.
私人妨害并非严格责任，而需要通过结构化检验对相互冲突的利益加以平衡。
Private Nuisance = Unlawful Interference + Use or Enjoyment of Land + Unreasonableness
The interference must be indirect, such as noise, smells, vibrations or overhanging branches, and must affect the claimant's land.
妨害必须是间接的，例如噪音、气味、震动或悬垂的树枝，并且必须影响到请求人的土地。
Reasonableness is the central formula element, judged by the character of the neighbourhood, duration, intensity, and the defendant's motive (Sturges v Bridgman).
合理性是核心公式要素，根据社区特征、持续期间、强度以及被告动机综合判断 (Sturges v Bridgman)。
A claimant who is abnormally sensitive will not succeed unless the interference would affect an ordinary landowner. The remedy is usually an injunction or damages.
异常敏感的请求人无权获得救济，除非该妨害同样会影响一般土地权利人。救济方式通常为禁令或损害赔偿。
8. Occupiers' Liability: The Common Duty of Care | 占有人责任：一般注意义务
Under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, an occupier owes a common duty of care to lawful visitors, which can be expressed as a statutory formula.
根据《1957年占有人责任法》，占有人对合法访客负有一股注意义务，可表述为法定公式。
is reasonable to see that the visitor is reasonably safe in using the premises for the permitted purpose
The occupier must prepare the premises to be safe for the class of visitor expected, not necessarily the actual individual.
占有人必须使场所对于预期类别访客是安全的，而非必然针对特定个体。
Special rules apply to children: an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful and more inquisitive (Glasgow Corp v Taylor).
对儿童适用特殊规则：占有人必须料到儿童会不够谨慎且更具好奇心 (Glasgow Corp v Taylor)。
Warnings can discharge the duty if they enable the visitor to be reasonably safe, but a warning does not absolve liability if the danger remains hidden.
警告若能使访客获得合理安全，即可解除义务；但若危险仍隐蔽存在，警告不能免除责任。
9. Contract Formation: Offer, Acceptance and Consideration | 合同成立：要约、承诺与对价
A binding contract is formed only when the core ingredients are present, following a strict sequential formula.
一份具有约束力的合同只有在核心要素齐备、并遵循严格顺序公式时方才成立。
Contract = Offer + Acceptance + Consideration + Intention to Create Legal Relations
An offer is a definite promise to be bound on specific terms, distinguishable from an invitation to treat (Fisher v Bell).
要约是一份明确表示愿意在特定条款下受约束的允诺，有别于要约邀请 (Fisher v Bell)。
Acceptance must be a mirror image of the offer, communicated to the offeror; silence cannot constitute acceptance (Felthouse v Bindley).
承诺必须完全匹配要约内容并传达给要约人；沉默不构成承诺 (Felthouse v Bindley)。
Consideration requires each party to give something of value in the eyes of the law; past consideration is no consideration.
对价要求各方在法律视角下提供有价值的东西；过去的对价不构成有效对价。
Intention to create legal relations is presumed in commercial agreements and rebutted in social and domestic contexts unless evidence proves otherwise.
创设法律关系的意图在商业协议中推定存在，在社交与家庭场合中则反之，但可凭证据推翻推定。
10. Human Rights Articles: ECHR Key Provisions | 人权条款：《欧洲人权公约》关键条文
The European Convention on Human Rights provides absolute and qualified rights that have been incorporated by the Human Rights Act 1998, often assessed through a proportionality formula.
《欧洲人权公约》规定了绝对权利和受限制权利，并由《1998年人权法》引入国内法，通常通过比例原则公式加以评估。
Article 2: Right to Life — Absolute but with limited exceptions (lawful execution, self-defence).
Article 2 imposes positive obligations on the state to protect life by having effective criminal laws and investigative mechanisms.
第二条为国家施加积极义务，要求通过有效的刑事法律和调查机制保护生命。
Article 3: Prohibition of Torture — Absolute, no derogation permitted.
Torture, inhuman or degrading treatment is never allowed, and the state must prevent such treatment by its agents.
酷刑、非人道或侮辱性待遇在任何情况下均不被允许，国家必须防止其公务人员实施此类行为。
Article 5: Right to Liberty and Security — Limited by lawful detention.
Detention must be in accordance with law and accompanied by access to court review.
拘禁必须依法进行，并赋予被拘禁者获得法院审查的权利。
Article 8: Right to Respect for Private and Family Life — A qualified right, balanced by the formula: Interference must be in accordance with law + legitimate aim + necessary in a democratic society.
Article 8 covers privacy, family, home and correspondence. Any limitation must satisfy the proportionality test, considering less intrusive alternatives.
第八条涵盖隐私、家庭、住所和通信。任何限制必须满足比例原则检验，并考虑是否有侵害性更小的替代措施。
Article 10: Freedom of Expression — Similarly qualified, wide margin of appreciation.
Expression includes opinions, ideas and information; restrictions must serve a pressing social need and be proportionate.
表达自由包括观点、思想和信息传播；限制必须服务于紧迫社会需求且符合比例。
Article 14: Prohibition of Discrimination — Operates alongside other Convention rights, requiring differential treatment to be objectively justified.
Article 14 does not stand alone but must be linked to another Convention right. Discrimination must lack reasonable and objective justification.
第十四条不能单独适用，必须与其他公约权利结合。歧视必须欠缺合理且客观的正当理由。
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