📚 Year 10 WJEC Law: Formula & Principles Quick Reference Handbook | WJEC 十年级法律：公式与定理速查手册
In law, we speak in 'formulas' – logical building blocks that combine elements to produce a legal outcome. This handbook captures the essential equations, tests, and principles you need for the WJEC Year 10 specification, from criminal liability to contract formation. Each entry presents the key formula first, followed by its breakdown and a translated Chinese explanation to reinforce bilingual understanding.
在法律中，我们用“公式”来表述——即逻辑构建块，将各个要素组合起来产生法律结果。本手册汇集了 WJEC 十年级课程所需的基本等式、检验标准和原则，涵盖从刑事责任到合同成立的各个方面。每个条目首先给出关键公式，然后分解其要素，并提供中文解释以加强双语理解。
1. Criminal Liability Formula | 刑事责任公式
The universal criminal equation: Actus Reus + Mens Rea (+ Absence of Defence) = Criminal Liability.
通用刑事等式：犯罪行为 + 犯罪意图（+ 无抗辩理由） = 刑事责任。
Actus reus must be a positive voluntary act or a qualifying omission. An omission gives rise to liability only where a legal duty exists, for example: statutory duty, contractual duty, assumption of care for another, creation of a dangerous situation, or an official position (R v Dytham).
犯罪行为必须是积极的自愿行为或符合条件的疏忽不作为。不作为仅在存在法律义务时才会产生责任，例如：法定义务、合同义务、已承担照顾他人的责任、制造了危险状况或担任公职（迪瑟姆案）。
Mens rea can take several recognised forms: direct intention (aim or purpose), oblique intention (the result is a virtual certainty and the defendant foresaw it – Woollin), Cunningham subjective recklessness (the defendant foresaw a risk and unreasonably went on to take it), and gross negligence for involuntary manslaughter. Note: strict liability offences require only the actus reus; no mens rea need be proved (e.g., food safety regulations).
犯罪意图有几种公认形式：直接故意（目标或目的）、间接故意（结果事实上确定且被告预见到——伍林案）、坎宁安主观轻率（被告预见到风险且不合理地漠视），以及非自愿误杀中的重大过失。注意：严格责任罪行仅需证明犯罪行为，无需证明犯罪意图（例如食品安全法规）。
The principle of transferred malice applies where the defendant intends to harm one person but accidentally harms another; the malice is transferred to the actual victim (R v Latimer). Coincidence of actus reus and mens rea is normally required in time, though a continuing act can bridge any gap (Fagan v MPC).
转移恶意原则适用于被告意图伤害某人却意外伤及另一人的情形；恶意被转移到实际受害者身上（拉蒂默案）。一般要求犯罪行为与犯罪意图时间上吻合，但持续行为可弥补时间差（费根诉警察局长案）。
For strict liability crimes the formula simplifies to: Actus Reus (+ No Due Diligence defence) = Liability. Mens rea is not an element.
对于严格责任罪行，公式简化为：犯罪行为（+ 未践行应尽努力抗辩）= 责任。犯罪意图不构成要件。
2. Causation Formula | 因果关系公式
In result crimes, liability hinges on causation: Factual Causation + Legal Causation → Defendant Liable for the Result.
在结果犯中，责任取决于因果关系：事实因果关系 + 法律因果关系 → 被告对结果负责。
Factual causation is tested by the 'but for' test: but for the defendant's conduct, would the prohibited result have occurred? If the result would have happened anyway, causation fails (R v White).
事实因果关系通过“若无则不”检验法判断：若无被告的行为，禁止的结果是否仍会发生？若结果无论如何都会发生，则因果关系不成立（怀特案）。
Legal causation requires the defendant's act to be a substantial and operating cause of the result; it must be more than de minimis (R v Hughes). The original injury must still be a significant contributor at the time of the result (R v Cheshire).
法律因果关系要求被告行为是结果的实质性和有效原因；必须超轻微（休斯案）。在结果发生时，初始伤害仍需是重要促成因素（切希尔案）。
The chain of causation may be broken by a novus actus interveniens – an intervening act that is free, voluntary and informed, or by an extraordinary natural event. Courts examine whether a third party's medical treatment was palpably wrong, or a victim's own response was reasonably foreseeable (R v Roberts).
因果链可能因新介入行为（一项自由、自愿且知情的行为）或异常自然事件而中断。法庭会审查第三方医疗处置是否明显错误，或受害人的自身反应是否合理可预见（罗伯茨案）。
Apply the thin skull rule: a defendant must take their victim as they find them, including pre-existing physical or mental conditions (R v Blaue). This principle prevents breaking the chain of causation.
适用薄头骨规则：被告必须接受受害者原有的状况，包括既存身体或心理状况（布莱尔案）。此原则可避免因果链中断。
3. Non-Fatal Assault & Battery Formulae | 非致命攻击与殴击公式
Two fundamental non-fatal offences are assault and battery, often charged together as common assault. Assault formula: AR: Causing Victim to Apprehend Immediate Unlawful Force + MR: Intention or Recklessness as to Apprehension.
两项基本非致命罪行是攻击（assault）和殴击（battery），常合并为普通侵犯人身罪。攻击公式：犯罪行为：使受害人恐惧即时非法暴力 + 犯罪意图：对造成恐惧蓄意或轻率。
Words alone or even silence can constitute an assault if they cause apprehension (R v Ireland); physical gestures are not always required. Apprehension means the victim expects immediate force, not merely fears it.
仅有言语甚至沉默若使人心生恐惧也可构成攻击（爱尔兰案）；不一定需要身体姿势。恐惧意指受害人预料即将会发生暴力，而非仅仅是害怕。
Battery formula: AR: Application of Unlawful Physical Force (even the slightest touching) + MR: Intention or Recklessness as to the Application. Touching of clothing is sufficient (R v Thomas).
殴击公式：犯罪行为：施加非法身体暴力（即使最轻微的触碰） + 犯罪意图：对施加暴力蓄意或轻率。触碰衣物即足够（托马斯案）。
Both assault and battery are summary offences with a maximum of six months' imprisonment. Consent can operate as a defence to battery in everyday jostling or sports.
攻击与殴击均属简易罪行，最高可判处六个月监禁。在日常推搡或体育活动中，同意可作为对殴击的抗辩。
4. ABH, GBH & Wounding Formulae | 实际身体伤害、严重身体伤害与创伤公式
More serious non-fatal offences under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 follow structured formulae. ABH (s.47): AR: Assault or Battery + ABH Result + MR: Intention/Recklessness as to the Assault/Battery. 'ABH' means any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim (R v Miller).
根据《1861年侵犯人身罪法》，更严重的非致命罪行遵循结构性公式。实际身体伤害 (s.47)：犯罪行为：攻击或殴击 + 实际身体伤害结果 + 犯罪意图：对攻击/殴击的故意或轻率。“实际身体伤害”意指任何足以干扰受害人健康或舒适感的伤害或损害（米勒案）。
GBH / Wounding (s.20): AR: Wounding or Inflicting GBH + MR: Intention or Recklessness as to Some Harm. A wound requires a break in the continuity of the whole skin (JJC v Eisenhower).
严重身体伤害 / 创伤 (s.20)：犯罪行为：创伤或造成严重身体伤害 + 犯罪意图：对造成一定伤害的故意或轻率。创伤要求皮肤完整性的全层断裂（JJC诉艾森豪威尔案）。
GBH / Wounding with intent (s.18): AR: Wounding or Causing GBH + MR: Specific Intent to Cause GBH or to Resist/Prevent Lawful Arrest. This carries a maximum life sentence, distinguishing it sharply from s.20.
带有意图的严重身体伤害 / 创伤 (s.18)：犯罪行为：创伤或造成严重身体伤害 + 犯罪意图：造成严重身体伤害的具体故意，或抗拒/阻止合法逮捕。此罪最高可判终身监禁，与 s.20 泾渭分明。
5. Theft Formula | 盗窃公式
Theft, defined by s.1 Theft Act 1968, is an equation of five elements: + Property + Belonging to Another + Dishonesty + Intention to Permanently Deprive = Theft.
盗窃，根据《1968年盗窃法》第1条，是由五个要素组成的等式：侵占 + 财产 + 属于他人 + 不诚实 + 永久剥夺的意图 = 盗窃。
Appropriation means any assumption of the owner's rights, including assuming a single right with consent (R v Morris). Property includes money, real property, personal property, things in action and other intangible property. Belonging to another means the victim has possession, control or a proprietary interest.
侵占指任何行使所有权人权利的行为，包括经同意后行使某一项权利（莫里斯案）。财产包括金钱、不动产、动产、诉讼物及其他无形财产。属于他人意指受害人有占有、控制或财产权益。
Dishonesty is assessed by the two-stage test in R v Ghosh (now modified by Ivey v Genting Casinos): (1) what was the defendant's actual state of knowledge or belief as to the facts? (2) was the conduct dishonest by the objective standards of ordinary decent people? There is no requirement for the defendant to appreciate that others would regard the conduct as dishonest.
不诚实的判断采用两阶段检验（源于戈什案，后经艾维诉根廷赌场案修正）：(1) 被告对事实的实际认知或信念是什么？(2) 按普通正派人的客观标准，该行为是否不诚实？不再要求被告认识到他人会视其为不诚实。
Intention to permanently deprive includes treating the property as one's own regardless of the owner's rights. Borrowing may amount to theft if the property is returned in a significantly altered state (R v Lloyd).
永久剥夺的意图包括将财产当作自己的财物处置、不顾原主的权利。若财产被归还时已发生根本性变化，借用也可构成盗窃（劳埃德案）。
6. Robbery & Burglary Equations | 抢劫与入室盗窃等式
Robbery (s.8 Theft Act 1968) builds upon theft: Theft + Force or Threat of Force Immediately Before or at the Time of Stealing = Robbery. The force must be used in order to steal (R v Hale).
抢劫（《1968年盗窃法》第8条）建立在盗窃之上：盗窃 + 在盗窃前或盗窃时立即使用或威胁使用武力 = 抢劫。武力必须是为实施盗窃而使用（黑尔案）。
If the theft is not completed, there can be no robbery; the elements of theft must all be present. The threat of force need not be directed at the person from whom the property is taken.
若盗窃未完成，则抢劫不成立；盗窃的所有要素必须全部具备。武力威胁并不要求指向被夺取财产的人。
Burglary (s.9) comes in two forms. s.9(1)(a): Entry as Trespasser + Intent to Commit Theft, GBH or Criminal Damage. The intent must exist at the time of entry. s.9(1)(b): Entry as Trespasser + Once Inside, Commits (or Attempts) Theft or GBH. The ulterior offence is actually carried out.
入室盗窃（第9条）有两种形式。s.9(1)(a)：作为侵入者进入 + 意图实施盗窃、严重身体伤害或刑事毁坏。意图必须在进入时就存在。s.9(1)(b)：作为侵入者进入 + 进入后实际实施（或企图）盗窃或严重身体伤害。后续罪行确实被实施。
7. Defences Formula | 抗辩理由公式
A complete defence nullifies liability. Self-defence (including defence of another and prevention of crime) is governed by two limbs: (i) Honest Belief of Threat + (ii) Reasonable Degree of Force = Lawful Justification (s.76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, clarified in R v Owino).
完全抗辩可使责任无效。自我防卫（包括防卫他人和阻止犯罪）受两个条件规制：(i) 诚实相信存在威胁 + (ii) 合理程度的武力 = 合法正当化（《2008年刑事司法与移民法》s.76，经奥维诺案阐明）。
Duress is a complete defence except to murder/attempted murder: t One of Murder + (d) Reasonable Person Would Have Responded Similarly = Defence of Duress (R v Graham). Self-induced duress will fail.
被迫行为是除谋杀/谋杀未遂外的完全抗辩：(a) 死亡或严重伤害的威胁 + (b) 没有合理逃脱机会 + (c) 被控罪行非谋杀 + (d) 理性人会有同样反应 = 被迫行为抗辩成立（格雷厄姆案）。自我引发的被迫行为不能成立。
Intoxication can be a defence only where a specific intent crime is charged and the defendant, due to involuntary intoxication, lacked the required intent. Voluntary intoxication may provide a partial defence to specific intent offences but can convict for a lesser basic intent offence (DPP v Majewski). Automatism requires total destruction of voluntary control by an external cause.
醉酒仅在被告因非自愿醉酒缺乏特别故意犯罪所需的故意时方可作为抗辩。自愿醉酒可能针对特别故意罪行提供部分抗辩，但可被判较轻的基本故意罪行（马耶夫斯基案）。无意识行为要求外部原因彻底摧毁自主控制。
8. Tort of Negligence Formula | 过失侵权公式
A successful negligence claim requires: y of : Duty of Care + Breach of Duty + Causation + Damage (not too remote) = Liability in Negligence.
成功的过失索赔需要：注意义务 + 违反义务 + 因果关系 + 损害（非过于遥远） = 过失责任。
Duty of care is established via the Caparo three-stage test: (1) Was harm reasonably foreseeable? (2) Was there proximity between claimant and defendant? (3) Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty? (Caparo v Dickman). Special duty situations such as doctor–patient or road users are well established.
注意义务通过卡帕罗三重检验确立：(1) 损害是否合理可预见？ (2) 原告与被告之间是否存在近邻关系？ (3) 科以义务是否公平、公正、合理？(卡帕罗诉迪克曼案)。医生与患者、道路使用者等特定注意义务情形已牢固确立。
Breach is measured against the reasonable person standard (Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks). Courts consider: the likelihood of harm, the magnitude of the risk, the practicality of taking precautions, and the social utility of the defendant's conduct. Professionals are judged by the standard of a reasonable body of their profession (Bolam/Bolitho).
是否违反义务以理性人标准衡量（布莱斯诉伯明翰水务公司案）。法院考虑：损害发生的可能性、风险的严重程度、采取预防措施的可行性，以及被告行为的社会功用。专业人士以其专业领域内合理的同行标准评判（博勒姆/波利索案）。
Causation requires the 'but for' test and proof that the breach was a substantial cause, plus the damage must not be too remote (The Wagon Mound). Res ipsa loquitur may assist where the accident speaks for itself.
因果关系要求“若无则不”检验及证明违反义务是实质性原因，且损害不得过于遥远（大船塢案）。在事故事实本身说明问题的情况下，可借助事实自证原则。
9.
Published by TutorHao | Year 10 法律 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