📚 Year 10 AQA Law: Formula & Principles Quick Reference Handbook | AQA 法律：公式定理速查手册
Welcome to your essential quick reference for Year 10 AQA Law. In this handbook, we distil complex legal rules into memorable 'formulas' and key principles. Each section pairs a fundamental legal concept with its practical application, helping you master the foundations of criminal law, tort, contract, and the English legal system. Use these building blocks to strengthen your revision and to apply the law with confidence in exam scenarios.
欢迎使用这本为 AQA 法律 Year 10 学生量身打造的核心速查手册。我们将复杂的法律规则提炼成易于记忆的“公式”与关键原则。每个部分都将基础法律概念与其实际应用配对，帮助你掌握刑法、侵权法、合同法及英国法律体系的基础。利用这些基本构件强化你的复习，并在考试情境中自信地运用法律。
1. Actus Reus + Mens Rea = Criminal Liability | 犯罪行为 + 犯罪意图 = 刑事责任
The cornerstone of criminal law is the equation: Actus Reus + Mens Rea + No Defence = Crime. Actus reus refers to the guilty act, which can be a voluntary action, an omission in certain duty situations, or a state of affairs. Mens rea is the guilty mind, most commonly intention or recklessness.
刑法的基石公式为：犯罪行为 + 犯罪意图 + 无抗辩理由 = 犯罪。犯罪行为指有罪的行为，可以是自愿动作、特定义务情形下的不作为，或某种状态。犯罪意图则是犯意，最常见的是故意或轻率。
For a conviction, the prosecution must prove both elements existed at the same time. The principle of coincidence requires that the actus reus and mens rea coincide in point of time. In a continuing act like Fagan v MPC, where a driver remained on a policeman's foot, the actus reus continued while the mens rea was formed, satisfying the requirement.
定罪需要控方证明两个要素同时存在。同步原则要求犯罪行为与犯罪意图在时间点上重合。在如Fagan v MPC这样的持续性行为案件中，驾驶员把车停在警察脚上，犯罪行为持续期间形成了犯罪意图，因而满足了这一要求。
2. Causation: Factual + Legal Cause | 因果关系：事实原因 + 法律原因
In result crimes, the prosecution must also prove that the defendant's act caused the prohibited outcome. The causation formula is: Factual Cause ('But For' Test) + Legal Cause (Substantial and Operative) = Chain of Causation Intact.
在结果犯中，控方还须证明被告的行为造成了被禁止的结果。因果关系的公式为：事实原因（“若非”检验）+ 法律原因（重大且起作用的）= 未中断的因果链条。
Factual causation uses the 'but for' test from R v White: but for the defendant's conduct, would the harm have occurred? Legal causation requires that the defendant's act was the substantial and operative cause. Thin skull rule (R v Blaue) means the defendant takes their victim as they find them, including vulnerabilities. An intervening act, like a third party's free, deliberate and informed act, may break the chain.
事实因果关系适用R v White案中的“若非”检验：若非被告的行为，损害是否会发生？法律原因要求被告的行为是重大且起作用的原因。蛋壳脑袋规则（R v Blaue）意味着被告必须接受被害人原有的特殊体质。第三方的自由、故意且知情的行为等介入行为可能中断因果链条。
3. Omissions: Duty + Breach = Actus Reus | 不作为：义务 + 违反义务 = 犯罪行为
The general rule is that there is no liability for a failure to act. However, the omission formula applies when Recognised Legal Duty + Breach of That Duty + Result = Actus Reus by Omission. The law recognises duties arising from special relationships, contractual obligations, voluntary assumption of care, and creation of a dangerous situation.
一般规则是不为未采取行动承担刑事责任。然而，当满足公认的法律义务 + 违反该义务 + 结果 = 不作为的犯罪行为时，不作为公式即适用。法律承认源自特殊关系、合同义务、自愿承担照顾责任以及制造危险情境的义务。
Key examples: a parent's duty to protect their child from harm (R v Gibbins & Proctor), a doctor's duty to treat a patient, and the duty to put right a danger you have created (R v Miller, where a squatter who started a fire failed to call for help). The breach must cause the prohibited result, combining omission principles with causation rules.
关键例子包括：父母保护子女免受伤害的义务（R v Gibbins & Proctor），医生治疗病人的义务，以及纠正自己制造的危险的义务（R v Miller案中，擅自占住者引起火灾后未呼救）。违反义务必须造成被禁止的结果，从而将不作为原则与因果关系规则结合起来。
4. Non-Fatal Offences: Assault = Apprehended Unlawful Violence | 非致命侵害：暴行 = 对违法暴力的恐惧
Assault and battery are separate common law offences. The formula for assault: V to Apprehend Immediate Unlawful Personal Violence + Intention or Recklessness = Assault. No physical contact is needed. The victim must merely fear that force is about to be used.
暴行与殴击是两个不同的普通法犯罪。暴行的公式：任何使受害人产生对即时违法人身暴力的恐惧的行为 + 故意或轻率 = 暴行。无需身体接触。受害人仅需担心即将被施加暴力。
Words alone can constitute assault (R v Ireland – silent telephone calls caused apprehension), and apprehension can be negated if it is clear the threat cannot be carried out. Battery, in contrast, requires the actual infliction of unlawful force. The mens rea is intention or subjective recklessness as in R v Venna.
仅有言语亦可构成暴行（R v Ireland案 – 沉默电话造成恐惧），若能清楚表明威胁无法实施，恐惧即被否定。对比之下，殴击要求实际施加违法暴力。其犯罪意图为故意或主观轻率，一如R v Venna案所确立。
5. Battery: Unlawful Physical Contact + Mens Rea | 殴击：违法身体接触 + 犯意
The battery equation is: ation of Unlawful Force to Another + Intention or Recklessness as to the Contact = Battery. The force can be minimal; touching a person's clothing while they are wearing it may suffice (R v Thomas). Hostile intent is not strictly required at common law, but everyday jostlings are excluded by implied consent.
殴击的等式为：对他人施加违法暴力 + 对该接触的故意或轻率 = 殴击。暴力可以极轻微；触碰人身上的衣物可能即已足够（R v Thomas）。普通法上并不严格要求敌意意图，但日常碰撞因默示同意而被排除。
Battery can be committed through a continuing act (Fagan v MPC) or even by an indirect act, such as setting a trap or causing a substance to be administered. Often, an assault will immediately precede a battery, but they remain distinct offences charged separately under s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988.
殴击可通过持续性行为（Fagan v MPC）或间接行为实施，例如设置陷阱或让他人摄入某种物质。通常暴行之后紧跟着殴击，但二者仍为不同罪名，依1988年刑事司法法第39条分别检控。
6. ABH and GBH: Assault Occasioning and Wounding | 实际身体伤害与严重身体伤害
Moving up the ladder, s.47 Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) requires: y + Occasioning + Actual Bodily Harm + Mens Rea of the Original Assault/Battery = s.47 ABH. The harm must be more than transient, including psychiatric injury (R v Chan-Fook).
升级到更高层级，第47条实际身体伤害要求：暴行或殴击 + 造成 + 实际身体伤害 + 原始暴行/殴击的犯意 = 第47条罪行。伤害须超出于短暂轻微，包括精神伤害（R v Chan-Fook）。
For the more serious offences under s.18 and s.20 OAPA 1861, the formula shifts to intent and injury level. s.20 malicious wounding or inflicting GBH requires an unlawful act that inflicts really serious harm, with foresight of some harm. s.18, the most serious, requires intention to cause GBH or to resist/prevent arrest, with specific intent.
对于《1861年侵害人身罪法》第18和第20条下的更为严重的犯罪，公式则转向意图和伤害程度。第20条恶意伤人罪要求一项非法行为造成真正的严重伤害，并预见到某种伤害。第18条最严重，要求具有造成严重身体伤害或拒捕/阻止逮捕的意图，属于特定故意。
7. Theft: Appropriation + Property + Dishonesty + Intention to Deprive | 盗窃：占有 + 财产 + 不诚实 + 永久剥夺的意图
Theft is defined under s.1 Theft Act 1968. The core formula is: her (s.5) + Dishonesty (s.2 & Common Law) + Intention to Permanently Deprive (s.6) = Theft. All five elements must be proven simultaneously.
盗窃由1968年盗窃法第1条定义。核心公式为：占有（第3条）+ 财产（第4条）+ 属于他人（第5条）+ 不诚实（第2条与普通法）+ 永久剥夺的意图（第6条）= 盗窃。所有五个要素必须同时得到证明。
Dishonesty is assessed via the common law Ivey v Genting test: what was the defendant's actual state of knowledge or belief as to the facts, and was their conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people? There is no longer a requirement that the defendant realise their conduct was dishonest by those standards.
不诚实的判断根据普通法Ivey v Genting案确立的标准：被告对事实的实际认知或信念是什么，以及按照普通正派人士的标准，他们的行为是否不诚实？不再要求被告认识到按那些标准其行为是不诚实的。
8. Robbery: Theft + Force or Threat of Force | 抢劫：盗窃 + 暴力或暴力威胁
Robbery is an aggravated form of theft: ce or Seeks to Put Any Person in Fear of Being Then and There Subjected to Force = Robbery (s.8 Theft Act 1968). The force must be used specifically to steal.
抢劫是加重的盗窃：完成的盗窃 + 在盗窃即将开始或当时 + 使用暴力或试图使任何人恐惧当时当场遭受暴力 = 抢劫（1968年盗窃法第8条）。暴力必须是为盗窃而专门使用的。
The level of force can be small, but there must be a direct link between the threat/force and the theft. If force is used after the theft is complete to escape, it may not constitute robbery. The mens rea includes the dishonesty and intent to permanently deprive inherent in the theft, plus intention or recklessness as to the force or threat.
暴力的程度可以很小，但在威胁/暴力与盗窃之间必须存在直接联系。若盗窃完成后再为逃离而使用暴力，则可能不构成抢劫。犯意包括盗窃中内含的不诚实和永久剥夺的意图，以及对使用暴力或威胁的故意或轻率。
9. Contract: Offer + Acceptance + Consideration + Intention = Binding Agreement | 合同：要约 + 承诺 + 对价 + 意图 = 有约束力的协议
The formation of a simple contract requires the following equation: eration + Intention to Create Legal Relations + Capacity + Legality = Enforceable Contract. Each element must be present for a binding agreement.
简单合同的成立要求以下等式：有效要约 + 有效承诺 + 对价 + 建立法律关系的意图 + 行为能力 + 合法性 = 可执行的合同。每一要素都必须具备，才能形成有约束力的协议。
An offer is an expression of willingness to contract on certain terms, made with the intention that it will become binding upon acceptance (Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co). Acceptance must mirror the offer and be communicated. Consideration is the 'price in return for the promise' and must move from the promisee, though it need not be adequate.
要约是对按特定条款缔约的意愿的表示，并带有一旦被承诺即受约束的意图（Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co案）。承诺必须与要约一致并被传达。对价是“换取允诺的代价”，必须由受诺人提供，但不必充分。
10. Negligence: Duty + Breach + Causation + Damage | 过失侵权：义务 + 违反 + 因果关系 + 损害
The tort of negligence is established by the formula: erson Standard) + Causation (Factual and Legal) + Damage Not Too Remote = Successful Claim. Negligence is the most common tort and protects against unintentional, but careless, harm.
过失侵权通过以下公式确立：注意义务（Caparo三阶段检验）+ 违反该义务（合理人标准）+ 因果关系（事实与法律原因）+ 损害非过于遥远 = 胜诉的赔偿请求。过失是最常见的侵权，防范非故意但疏忽所致的损害。
The Caparo v Dickman test asks: was harm reasonably foreseeable, is there sufficient proximity, and is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty? Breach is judged by the standard of the reasonable person, adjusted for professionals (Bolam test) but not for inexperience. The 'but for' test and remoteness rules from Wagon Mound complete the analysis.
Caparo v Dickman检验提出：损害是否可合理预见，是否存在充分的邻近关系，以及施加义务是否公平、公正且合理？违反义务以合理人的标准判断，专业人员适用Bolam标准，但不因缺乏经验而调整。“若非”检验和Wagon Mound案中的损失遥远性规则完成此项分析。
11. Sources of Law: Statute + Precedent = English Legal System | 法律渊源：制定法 + 判例 = 英国法律体系
The dual foundations of English law are captured by: f by: Acts of Parliament + Judicial Precedent (Stare Decisis) + Statutory Interpretation = Body of Law. Parliament is sovereign, but judges develop common law through binding and persuasive precedents based on the hierarchy of courts.
英国法的双重根基可概括为：议会立法 + 司法先例（遵循先例）+ 成文法解释 = 法律整体。议会是至上的，但法官通过基于法院等级的有约束力和有说服力的先例发展着普通法。
The doctrine of precedent relies on the ratio decidendi (the binding reason for the decision) and obiter dicta (persuasive statements). The Supreme Court (formerly House of Lords) binds all lower courts but has been able to depart from its own previous decisions since the 1966 Practice Statement. Statutory interpretation uses the literal rule, golden rule, mischief rule and purposive approach.
先例原则依赖于判决理由（有约束力的裁判理由）和附带意见（有说服力的陈述）。最高法院（前为上议院）约束所有下级法院，但自1966年实践声明后可以偏离其自身先前的裁决。成文法解释使用文义规则、黄金规则、弊端规则和目的解释方法。
12. Defences: Raising the Defence + Evidential Burden = Possible Acquittal | 抗辩：提出抗辩 + 证据负担 = 可能无罪
In criminal law, even if the elements of an offence are satisfied, a defendant may rely on a defence. The general formula is: sity / Self-Defence / Intoxication / Automatism / Insanity) = Acquittal or Partial Defence. Some defences, like self-defence, provide a complete acquittal; others, like diminished responsibility, reduce murder to manslaughter.
在刑法中，即使犯罪要件均被满足，被告仍可依赖某种抗辩。一般公式为：经证明的犯罪要素 – （胁迫 / 紧急避险 / 自卫 / 醉态 / 自动化 / 精神错乱）= 无罪释放或部分抗辩。某些抗辩，如自卫，提供完全的无罪；其他如减轻责任，则将谋杀降为过失杀人。
Self-defence allows reasonable force to protect oneself or another. It is governed by s.76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 and common law. Duress requires a threat of death or serious injury, with no safe avenue of escape (R v Graham). Intoxication can be voluntary or involuntary, with different rules for specific and basic intent crimes, as set out in DPP v Majewski.
自卫允许使用合理武力保护自己或他人，受2008年刑事司法与移民法第76条及普通法规范。胁迫要求存在死亡或严重伤害的威胁，且无安全逃避途径（R v Graham）。醉态分为自愿与非自愿，对特定故意和基本故意犯罪适用不同规则，如DPP v Majewski案所阐明。
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