📚 Year 10 CIE Law: Formula and Theorem Quick Reference | Year 10 CIE 法律：公式定理速查手册
In law, mastering key principles is like memorising formulas in mathematics. Just as you must recall equations instantly during a maths exam, CIE IGCSE Law students need to remember the 'legal equations' that define liability in criminal, contract, and tort law. This quick reference manual reorganises the essential rules of Year 10 Law into simple, memorable formulas, so you can apply them confidently in problem questions. Treat these as your go‑to cheat sheet for revision.
在法律学习中，掌握关键原则就像记住数学公式一样重要。正如你在数学考试中必须迅速回想公式，CIE IGCSE 法律学生也需要记住那些定义刑事、合同和侵权责任的“法律等式”。本速查手册将十年级法律的基本规则整理成简单易记的公式，使你能自信地应用于案例问题。把它当作你复习的首选“作弊纸”。
1. The Criminal Liability Equation | 刑事责任公式
Most criminal offences have two essential ingredients: the external act and the internal state of mind. Unless the crime is one of strict liability, the prosecution must prove both actus reus and mens rea for a conviction. The basic equation for criminal liability summarises this relationship.
大多数刑事犯罪包含两个基本要素：外在行为和内在心理状态。除非是严格责任犯罪，否则检方必须同时证明犯罪行为和犯罪意图才能定罪。刑事责任的基本公式概括了这一关系。
Criminal Liability = Actus Reus + Mens Rea − Defence
Actus reus refers to all the physical elements of the crime – conduct, consequence, and circumstances. Mens rea covers the mental state, such as intention, recklessness, or negligence. If a valid defence exists (e.g. self‑defence, duress), the equation becomes zero, and the defendant is acquitted.
犯罪行为 (actus reus) 指的是犯罪的所有客观要素——行为、结果和情节。犯罪意图 (mens rea) 涵盖心理状态，例如故意、轻率或过失。如果存在有效抗辩（如正当防卫、胁迫），等式结果为零，被告被宣告无罪。
2. Actus Reus: The Guilty Act | 犯罪行为：有罪的行为
Actus reus can take three forms: a voluntary act, an omission (where a legal duty exists), or a state of affairs. An omission only gives rise to liability if the law imposes a duty to act, for example, a parent’s duty to care for their child.
犯罪行为可以表现为三种形式：自愿的作为、不作为（当存在法律义务时）或某种状态。不作为只有在法律施加作为义务时才产生责任，例如父母照顾子女的义务。
The actus reus must be voluntary. If a defendant acts under an uncontrollable reflex or physical force, they lack the voluntary element. Courts also look for a link between the act and the prohibited consequence, known as causation.
犯罪行为必须是自愿的。如果被告的行为是由于无法控制的反射动作或外力，则缺乏自愿要素。法院还会寻找行为与所禁止后果之间的联系，即因果关系。
Actus Reus = Voluntary Conduct (Act / Omission) + Causation + Prohibited Consequence
For example, in murder, the actus reus is the unlawful killing of a human being. The prosecution must prove the defendant’s act caused the death, and that death was the direct consequence of the act.
例如，在谋杀罪中，犯罪行为是非法杀害他人。检方必须证明被告的行为导致了死亡，并且死亡是该行为的直接结果。
3. Mens Rea: The Guilty Mind | 犯罪意图：有罪的心理
Mens rea expresses the defendant’s blameworthy state of mind. The level required varies by offence. The highest level is intention, where the defendant wants the consequence or sees it as virtually certain.
犯罪意图表达被告应受谴责的心理状态。所需级别因罪行而异。最高级别是故意，即被告希望造成该后果或认识到它几乎必然发生。
Recklessness is a lower form, where the defendant foresees an unjustifiable risk but goes ahead anyway. Negligence is the lowest – a failure to meet the standard of a reasonable person, typically used in rare criminal offences such as gross negligence manslaughter.
轻率是较低形式，即被告预见到不合理风险但仍然实施。过失是最低级——未达到合理人的标准，通常用于少见的刑事犯罪，如重大过失杀人罪。
Mens Rea Hierarchy: Intention > Recklessness > Negligence > Strict Liability (no mens rea)
Some offences require no mens rea at all; these are strict liability crimes. Examples include selling alcohol to minors and certain food hygiene offences. In such cases, the actus reus alone proves guilt.
有些犯罪完全不要求犯罪意图，这就是严格责任犯罪。例如向未成年人售酒和某些食品卫生犯罪。在这些情况下，仅凭犯罪行为即可证明有罪。
4. Causation in Criminal Law: Factual and Legal | 刑法中的因果关系：事实与法律
Causation links the defendant’s conduct to the harm. The courts apply a two‑stage test. First, factual causation uses the 'but for' test: but for the defendant’s act, would the consequence have occurred? If no, factual causation is established.
因果关系将被告的行为与损害联系起来。法院采用两步检验。首先，事实因果采用“若无则不”标准：要是没有被告的行为，后果会发生吗？若不会，则事实因果成立。
Second, legal causation requires that the defendant’s act was the operating and substantial cause of the consequence. There must be no novus actus interveniens (new intervening act) that breaks the chain of causation. Intervening acts by third parties, the victim’s own actions, or natural events may break the chain if they are unforeseeable.
其次，法律因果要求被告的行为是结果的持续且实质性的原因。不得有中断因果链的新介入行为。第三人、受害人自身的行为或自然事件如果不可预见，则可能打断因果链。
Valid Causation = Factual ('But For') Causation × Legal (Substantial & Operating) Causation
Remember the thin skull rule: a defendant must take their victim as they find them. Even if the victim has an unusual vulnerability that makes the harm worse, the chain remains unbroken.
记住“薄头盖骨规则”：被告必须接受受害人的现状。即使受害人因特殊体质使伤害更加严重，因果链仍不中断。
5. Non‑Fatal Offences against the Person: Quick Formulas | 非致命人身侵害：快速公式
The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 groups common non‑fatal offences. Each has distinct actus reus and mens rea requirements. Understanding these as mini‑equations will help you analyse scenario questions quickly.
《1861年人身侵害法案》将常见的非致命犯罪归类。每种都有独特的犯罪行为和犯罪意图要求。将它们理解为微型等式将帮助您快速分析情景题。
mon Assault = Causing Apprehension of Immediate Unlawful Force + Intention or Recklessness
Battery is the actual infliction of unlawful force. Its equation is: Battery = Infliction of Unlawful Personal Force + Intention or Recklessness.
殴打是实际施加非法暴力。它的等式是：殴打 = 施加非法人身暴力 + 故意或轻率。
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) under s.47 requires assault or battery that causes more than trivial harm – any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with health or comfort.
ABH (s.47) = Common Assault or Battery + Occasioning ⇒ Actual Bodily Harm
More serious injuries fall under s.20 (malicious wounding/inflicting GBH) and s.18 (wounding/causing GBH with intent). For s.20, mens rea is malicious, meaning intention or recklessness as to some harm. For s.18, mens rea is specific intent – intention to cause grievous bodily harm.
更严重的伤害属于第20条（恶意伤人/造成严重身体伤害）和第18条（意图伤人/造成严重身体伤害）。第20条的犯罪意图是恶意，即对某些伤害具有故意或轻率。第18条的犯罪意图是特定故意——造成严重身体伤害的意图。
6. Theft: Formula under the Theft Act 1968 | 盗窃：1968年盗窃法的公式
Theft is defined in s.1 of the Theft Act 1968. Breaking the definition into components and thinking of it as a formula helps isolate each element when applying the law to facts.
盗窃的定义载于《1968年盗窃法》第1条。把定义拆解为组成部分并视为一个公式，有助于在将法律适用于事实时逐项分析每个要素。
shonest Appropriation + Property + Belonging to Another + Intention to Permanently Deprive
Appropriation means assuming the rights of the owner. It can include taking, using, or disposing of property. The property must be tangible or intangible (except land, wild plants etc, within limits). Belonging to another covers possession or control, or a proprietary interest.
“侵占”是指行使所有者的权利，可以包括取走、使用或处分财产。财产必须是有形或无形的（在一定限制内，土地、野生植物等除外）。属于他人包括占有、控制或所有权权益。
Dishonesty is partially defined in s.2, providing three situations where a person is not dishonest (belief in legal right, belief owner would consent, belief owner cannot be discovered). If these do not apply, the jury applies the standard of ordinary decent people. The final element, intention to permanently deprive, means treating the property as your own to dispose of regardless of the owner’s rights.
非诚实性在第2条中有部分定义，规定了三种不视为不诚实的情形（相信有法律权利、相信所有人会同意、相信所有人无法找到）。如果不适用，陪审团适用普通正派人士的标准。最后一个要素，永久剥夺的意图，意味着将财产当作自己的来处置，无视所有人的权利。
7. Contract Formation: Offer and Acceptance | 合同成立：要约与承诺
A legally binding contract is formed when certain ingredients come together. The core building blocks are offer, acceptance and consideration, supported by an intention to create legal relations and capacity. View this as a recipe or formula.
当某些要素结合时，具有法律约束力的合同便成立。核心基石是要约、承诺和对价，并由建立法律关系的意图和能力支撑。可以将其视为一份菜谱或公式。
t = Offer + Acceptance + Consideration + ITCLR + Capacity + (Absence of Vitiating Factors)
An offer is a definite promise to be bound on specific terms, as opposed to an invitation to treat, which is merely an invitation to negotiate (e.g. goods on display in a shop). Acceptance must be an unconditional agreement to all terms of the offer, communicated to the offeror (except where the postal rule applies).
要约是一份包含具体条款的明确承诺，愿受约束；而要价邀请仅是一项谈判邀请（例如商店陈列商品）。承诺必须是对要约所有条款的无条件同意，并传达给要约人（邮寄规则适用时除外）。
The postal rule states that acceptance takes effect when the letter is properly posted, not when it is received. This exception applies only to acceptance, not to offers or revocations.
邮寄规则规定，承诺在信件妥投时生效，而非收到时。这一例外仅适用于承诺，不适用于要约或撤销。
8. Consideration in Contract Law | 合同法中的对价
Consideration is the price one party pays for the promise of the other. It can be a benefit to the promisor or a detriment to the promisee. The rules of consideration are often tested, and remembering them as a checklist is vital.
对价是一方为对方承诺支付的价格。它既可是对允诺人的利益，也可是对受允诺人的损害。对价规则常被考查，将它们作为核对清单记忆至关重要。
Something of Value + Not Past + Sufficient but Need Not Be Adequate + Moves from Promisee
Consideration must not be past: if the act was completed before the promise is made, it is generally no consideration (exception: past acts requested by the promisor under Lampleigh v Braithwait).
对价不得是过去的：如果行为在作出允诺之前已完成，一般不构成对价（例外：允诺人请求的过去行为，依据 Lampleigh v Braithwait 案）。
Consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate. This means the courts do not enquire into the economic adequacy of the price; a nominal amount or a peppercorn can be sufficient, provided it has some value in the eye of the law.
对价必须充分但无需相当。这意味着法院不审查价格的经济对等性；名义金额或胡椒子也可以充分，只要在法律眼中有一定价值。
Finally, consideration must move from the promisee: the person seeking to enforce the contract must have provided consideration. This rule is linked to the doctrine of privity of contract.
最后，对价必须来自受允诺人：寻求执行合同的人必须已提供对价。这一规则与合同相对性原则相关。
9. Intention to Create Legal Relations and Capacity | 建立法律关系的意图与能力
Even if offer, acceptance and consideration exist, the parties must intend their agreement to be legally binding. The law divides agreements into social/domestic and commercial/business settings.
即使存在要约、承诺和对价，双方也必须有意使协议具有法律约束力。法律将协议分为社会/家庭情境和商业情境。
In social and domestic agreements, there is a presumption that there is no intention to create legal relations (Balfour v Balfour). This presumption can be rebutted by evidence of a contrary intention, such as a written agreement.
在社会与家庭协议中，推定不存在建立法律关系的意图（Balfour v Balfour 案）。这一推定可通过相反意图的证据（如书面协议）予以推翻。
In commercial agreements, the presumption is strongly in favour of an intention to create legal relations. The burden of proof lies on the party asserting that there was no such intention, which is very difficult to rebut.
在商业协议中，推定有力支持存在建立法律关系的意图。主张无此意图的一方承担举证责任，且极难推翻。
Capacity means the parties must be legally able to enter a contract. Minors, persons with mental incapacity, and intoxicated persons may lack full capacity. Contracts with minors are generally voidable or unenforceable except for necessaries.
能力是指当事人在法律上有能力订立合同。未成年人、精神障碍者和醉酒者可能缺乏完全行为能力。与未成年人订立的合同通常是可撤销或不可执行的，必需品合同除外。
10. Tort of Negligence: The Negligence Equation | 过失侵权：过失等式
The tort of negligence allows a claimant to recover damages for harm caused by a defendant’s careless behaviour. The core elements fit neatly into a formula that you must check step by step.
过失侵权允许原告就被告疏忽行为造成的损害获得赔偿。核心要素干净利落地组合成一个公式，你须逐步核对。
Negligence Liability = Duty of Care + Breach of Duty + Causation of Damage + No Defence
A duty of care is determined by the neighbour principle from Donoghue v Stevenson: you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that you can reasonably foresee would injure your neighbour. The modern approach uses the Caparo three‑part test: foreseeability of harm, proximity between the parties, and fairness, justice and reasonableness to impose a duty.
注意义务由 Donoghue v Stevenson 案中的邻人原则决定：你必须采取合理注意，避免你可以合理预见会伤害邻人的作为或不作为。现代方法使用 Caparo 三步检验：损害的预见性、当事人之间的接近性，以及施加义务的公正、合理。
Breach occurs when the defendant falls below the standard of the reasonable person. The court considers the probability of injury, seriousness of the risk, cost of precautions and social value of the activity (Bolton v Stone).
当被告低于合理人标准时，即构成违反义务。法院考量伤害的概率、风险的严重性、预防成本以及活动的社会价值（Bolton v Stone 案）。
11. Defences in Tort: Contributory Negligence and Volenti | 侵权抗辩：共同过失与自愿承受风险
Even if negligence is established, the defendant can raise defences to reduce or eliminate liability. Two key defences function like negative terms in the liability equation.
即便过失成立，被告仍可提出抗辩以减少或免除责任。两个关键抗辩如同责任等式中的负项。
Contributory negligence under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 allows the court to reduce the damages when the claimant’s own negligence contributed to their harm. The damage award is reduced by a percentage reflecting the claimant’s share of blame.
依据《1945年法律改革（共同过失）法》，当原告自身过失促成了损害，法院可减少损害赔偿。赔偿金额根据原告的过错比例按百分比扣减。
Damages Award = Full Loss − (Full Loss × Claimant’s Fault %)
Volenti non fit injuria (voluntary assumption of risk) is a complete defence. It applies when the claimant freely and fully consents to the risk of harm, with full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk. In sports or certain activities, spectators may be taken to have accepted ordinary risks.
自愿承受风险（volenti non fit injuria）是一项完全抗辩。当原告自由且完全同意承受伤害风险，并充分了解风险的性质和程度时适用。在体育或某些活动中，观众可能被视为接受了普通风险。
12. Occupiers' Liability Quick Formula | 占用人责任快速公式
Occupiers’ liability concerns the duty an occupier of premises owes to lawful visitors (Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957) and, to a limited degree, trespassers (OLA 1984). For Year 10, focus on the 1957 Act, which can be expressed as a simple equation.
占用人责任涉及场所占用人对合法访客（1957年占用人责任法）以及在有限程度内对侵入者（1984年占用人责任法）的义务。十年级重点在1957年法案，可表示为简单等式。
57) = Occupier + Visitor + Danger Due to State of Premises + Breach of Common Duty of Care
An occupier is anyone with sufficient control over the premises. A visitor is someone with express or implied permission to enter. The common duty of care is to take such care as is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the permitted purpose.
占用人指对场所拥有足够控制力的任何人。访客是经明示或默示许可进入的人。普遍注意义务是采取合理注意，确保访客为被允许之目的使用场所时合理安全。
Children and vulnerable visitors are owed a higher standard of care, as occupiers must expect them to be less careful. However, an occupier can discharge their duty by giving an adequate warning of a danger.
对儿童和脆弱访客负有更高标准的注意，因为占用人应预见他们不够小心。不过，占用人可通过给予充分危险警告而解除义务。
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