📚 Quick-Reference Handbook of Legal 'Formulae' for Year 10 Edexcel Law | 英国中考法律公式定理速查手册
In law, we don’t work with numbers and equations in the way mathematicians do, but we do use fixed rules, tests, and conceptual building blocks that function just like formulae. For Year 10 Edexcel Law, remembering these ‘legal equations’ will help you analyse problem scenarios, structure your answers, and apply the law with precision. This handbook collects the most important ‘formulae’ from criminal liability, tort, and contract law, presenting them side by side in English and Chinese so you can learn the terminology in both languages while mastering the logic of legal reasoning.
法律学科虽然没有数学公式，但有一系列固定的规则、检验标准和概念模块，它们就像公式一样，能帮你在分析案列、搭建答案时做到准确、严谨。这本速查手册汇集了刑事责任、侵权和合同法中最核心的“公式”，用中英双语呈现，让你在掌握法律推理逻辑的同时，熟悉中英文法律术语。
1. The Core Crime Equation | 犯罪构成核心公式
Every criminal offence is built from a combination of prohibited conduct and a blameworthy state of mind, reduced by any available defence. This is the foundation of criminal liability.
任何刑事犯罪都由被禁止的行为加上应受谴责的心理状态构成，再扣除可能成立的抗辩理由。这是刑事责任的根基。
Actus Reus + Mens Rea – Defence = Criminal Liability
犯罪行为 + 犯罪意图 – 抗辩 = 刑事责任
- Actus reus: the guilty act (conduct, consequences, or state of affairs).
- 犯罪行为：包括行为、结果或特定状态。
- Mens rea: the guilty mind (intention, recklessness, negligence).
- 犯罪意图：包括故意、轻率、疏忽等。
- Defence: a legally recognised excuse or justification (e.g. self-defence, duress).
- 抗辩：法律认可的免责或正当化事由，如正当防卫、胁迫。
2. Actus Reus Breakdown | 犯罪行为分解公式
Actus reus is rarely just a single act; it usually contains three distinct elements that the prosecution must prove.
犯罪行为往往不只是一个单一动作，控方通常需要证明其中三个独立要素。
Actus Reus = Conduct + Circumstances + Consequence
犯罪行为 = 行为 + 特定情节 + 结果
- Conduct: the physical act or omission required by the offence (e.g. applying force in battery).
- 行为：罪名所要求的作为或不作为，如殴打中的施加暴力。
- Circumstances: the surrounding facts that must exist (e.g. the victim is a person; property belongs to another).
- 特定情节：必须存在的环境事实，如被害人是人、财产属于他人等。
- Consequence: the result of the conduct (e.g. wounding, death) for result crimes.
- 结果：行为导致的后果，如伤害、死亡，适用于结果犯。
3. Causation Formula | 因果关系公式
For result crimes, the prosecution must prove that the defendant’s conduct caused the prohibited consequence. This requires two types of causation to be satisfied.
对于结果犯，控方必须证明被告的行为造成了法律禁止的后果。这需要同时满足两种因果关系。
Causation = Factual Causation + Legal Causation
因果关系 = 事实因果关系 + 法律因果关系
- Factual causation: ‘but for’ the defendant’s act, would the result have occurred? (White, Pagett).
- 事实因果关系：采用“若无则不”检验，即如果没有被告的行为，结果是否还会发生？
- Legal causation: the defendant’s act must be the ‘operating and substantial’ cause (Smith, Cheshire).
- 法律因果关系：被告的行为必须是“有效且重大”的原因，而非仅是背景因素。
- An intervening act (novus actus interveniens) breaks the chain of causation only if it is free, deliberate and informed, or an abnormal event.
- 新的介入行为只有在其是自由、故意且明知的，或是异常事件时，才能中断因果关系链条。
4. Omissions: When Failing to Act = Actus Reus | 不作为等于犯罪行为的例外公式
The general rule is that there is no liability for failing to act. However, several exceptions to this rule create a duty to act, making an omission capable of satisfying actus reus.
一般规则是不作为不构成刑事责任。但若干例外情形会创设作为义务，此时不作为就可以满足犯罪行为要件。
Omission = Duty to Act + Failure to Act + (Causation)
不作为刑事责任 = 作为义务 + 未履行 + (因果关系)
- Duty arising from a special relationship (parent–child, Gibbins and Proctor).
- 因特殊关系产生的义务，如父母对子女。
- Duty arising from assumption of responsibility (Stone and Dobinson).
- 因自愿承担照顾责任产生的义务。
- Duty arising from creating a dangerous situation (Miller).
- 因制造了危险状态而产生的采取合理措施消除危险的义务。
- Duty imposed by contract or public office (Pittwood).
- 因合同或公职产生的作为义务。
5. Mens Rea Formula: Intention & Recklessness | 犯罪意图公式：故意与轻率
Mens rea is the mental element of an offence. The two principal forms are intention and recklessness. Their exact definition often decides liability.
犯罪意图是罪行的主观要素，两种主要形式是故意与轻率，其准确定义常决定责任成立与否。
Mens Rea = Intention (Direct or Oblique) OR Recklessness (Cunningham)
犯罪意图 = 故意 (直接/间接) 或 轻率 (Cunningham 标准)
- Direct intention: it was the defendant’s aim or purpose to bring about the result (Mohan).
- 直接故意：结果是被告人的目的或目标。
- Oblique intention: the result was a virtual certainty and the defendant appreciated that (Woollin).
- 间接故意：结果是实际上必然发生的，且被告人认识到这一点。
- Cunningham recklessness: the defendant foresaw a risk of the prohibited result and unreasonably took that risk.
- Cunningham 轻率：被告人预见到了被禁止结果发生的风险，却不合理地冒了该风险。
6. Transferred Malice | 犯意转移公式
If a defendant intends to commit a crime against one victim but accidentally harms another, the mens rea can be transferred from the intended target to the actual victim.
如果被告人意图对甲实施犯罪，却意外地伤害了乙，其犯罪意图可以从原目标转移至实际被害人。
Mens Rea (Target A) + Actus Reus (Victim B) = Liability for Same Crime Against B
对 A 的犯意 + 对 B 的行为 = 对 B 构成同一罪名
- The malice transfers only for the same type of offence (e.g. intention to assault transfers to assault, not to criminal damage) (Latimer).
- 犯意转移仅适用于同类罪名，例如殴打意图只能转移为殴打罪，不能转移为刑事毁坏罪。
- If the actual outcome involves a completely different kind of harm, the doctrine does not apply (Pembliton).
- 如果实际发生的损害与意图造成的损害类型完全不同，则不适用该原则。
7. Strict Liability 'Formula' | 严格责任公式
Some offences require no mens rea for at least part of the actus reus. These are strict liability offences, mostly found in regulatory or public safety statutes.
某些罪行对犯罪行为的至少一部分不要求犯罪意图，这就是严格责任犯罪，多见于监管或公共安全法规中。
Actus Reus (Prohibited Act) + No Need for Mens Rea = Strict Liability
禁止行为 + 无需证明犯意 = 严格责任
- The court presumes that mens rea is required, but this presumption can be rebutted if the statute is regulatory, concerns public safety, or the penalty is small (Gammon Ltd v A-G of Hong Kong).
- 法院推定犯罪需要犯意，但在法规属于监管性质、涉及公共安全或刑罚轻微时，该推定可被推翻。
- Examples: selling alcohol to a minor, speeding, food hygiene offences.
- 例：向未成年人售酒、超速驾驶、食品安全违法。
8. The ‘Assault & Battery’ Equations | 企图伤害与殴打的公式
Assault and battery are separate common law offences, often charged together but relying on different actus reus elements.
企图伤害和殴打是两项独立的普通法犯罪，常被一并指控，但各自的犯罪行为要件不同。
Assault = Causing Victim to Apprehend Immediate Unlawful Force + Intention/Recklessness
企图伤害 = 使被害人担心即将遭受非法暴力 + 故意或轻率
Battery = Inflicting Unlawful Personal Force + Intention/Recklessness
殴打 = 施加非法人身暴力 + 故意或轻率
- Assault does not require touching; words alone or silent phone calls can suffice (Ireland).
- 企图伤害不需要接触，仅凭言语或无声电话即可构成。
- Battery requires physical contact, but the slightest touch is enough (Collins v Wilcock).
- 殴打要求身体接触，但极轻微的触碰即已足够。
9. Section 47 ABH Formula | 第47条实际身体伤害公式
Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 creates the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The structure follows a simple building-block approach.
《1861年侵害人身罪法》第47条规定了企图伤害或殴打造成实际身体伤害的犯罪，其构成采用简单的叠加结构。
S47 ABH = Assault or Battery + Occasioning + Actual Bodily Harm
S47 实际身体伤害 = 企图伤害或殴打 + 导致 + 实际身体伤害
- There must first be an assault or battery (hostile act).
- 首先必须存在一项企图伤害或殴打行为。
- ‘Occasioning’ means causation – the assault/battery must have caused the harm.
- “导致”意味着因果关系，即该企图伤害或殴打行为必须造成该伤害。
- ABH includes injuries that are more than transient, such as cuts, bruises, or psychological injury recognised by a medical expert (Miller).
- 实际身体伤害包括超越短暂性的伤害，如割伤、瘀伤或被医学专家认定的精神伤害。
10. General Defences: Self-Defence Formula | 一般抗辩：正当防卫公式
Self-defence is a complete defence. The law sets out both a trigger element and a response element that must be satisfied.
正当防卫是一项完全抗辩，法律规定了必须同时满足的启动条件和反应条件。
Self-Defence = Honest Belief of Threat + Reasonable Force in Response
正当防卫 = 诚实地相信存在威胁 + 使用合理的武力进行反击
- The defendant must genuinely believe that force is necessary to defend themselves or another, or to prevent crime (Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008; Palmer).
- 被告人必须真诚地相信有必要使用武力保护自己或他人，或阻止犯罪。
- The level of force must be reasonable in the circumstances, judged according to the defendant’s genuine belief, even if mistaken (but mistaken intoxication cannot be relied upon).
- 武力程度必须在当时情况下是合理的，以被告人真诚相信的事实来判断，但自愿醉酒的误认不能援引。
- The defence fails if the force used was grossly disproportionate (Martin).
- 如果使用的武力极不相称，抗辩不成立。
11. Negligence ‘Equation’ | 疏忽侵权的公式
To prove negligence in the civil law of tort, a claimant must establish three core components. This is one of the most examinable areas in civil liability.
要证明侵权法下的疏忽，原告必须确立三个核心要素。这是民事责任中最常考的领域之一。
Negligence = Duty of Care + Breach of Duty + Damage Caused by Breach
疏忽 = 注意义务 + 违反义务 + 因违反义务造成损害
- Duty of care: established using the neighbour principle (Donoghue v Stevenson) and the Caparo three-part test (foreseeability, proximity, fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty).
- 注意义务：通过邻人原则和 Caparo 三步检验（可预见性、关联性、公平合理）确立。
- Breach: the defendant fell below the standard of the reasonable person (Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks), considering risk factors (Bolton v Stone).
- 违反义务：被告未达到合理人的标准，需考虑风险大小等因素。
- Damage: both factual and legal causation must be proved, and the damage must not be too remote (The Wagon Mound).
- 损害：须证明事实上和法律上的因果关系，且损害不能过于遥远。
12. Contract Formation ‘Equation’ | 合同成立的公式
A legally binding contract is formed when certain essential ingredients are present. The absence of any one element means no enforceable agreement exists.
当若干基本要素具备时，一份有法律约束力的合同就成立了。缺少任意一个要素，即不存在可强制执行的协议。
Valid Contract = Offer + Acceptance + Consideration + Intention to Create Legal Relations
有效合同 = 要约 + 承诺 + 对价 + 设立法律关系的意图
- Offer: a clear expression of willingness to be bound on certain terms (Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co contrasts with invitation to treat, e.g. Fisher v Bell).
- 要约：明确表明愿受特定条款约束的意思表示，区别于要约邀请（如商品陈列）。
- Acceptance: unconditional agreement to all the terms of the offer, communicated to the offeror (postal rule may apply: Adams v Lindsell).
- 承诺：无条件完全同意要约条款，并传达给要约人；邮寄规则可能适用。
- Consideration: something of value given by each party (Currie v Misa). Must be sufficient but need not be adequate.
- 对价：各方提供的具有价值之物，需充分但不必对等。
- Intention: in social and domestic arrangements, there is a presumption against intention; in commercial agreements, a strong presumption in favour exists.
- 设立法律关系的意图：社交或家庭安排中推定无意图，商业协议中则强烈推定有意图。
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