📚 Year 11 Edexcel Law: Quick Reference Handbook for Formulas and Principles | Year 11 Edexcel 法律：公式定理速查手册
This quick reference handbook provides a concise summary of essential legal 'formulas', tests and principles for the Edexcel GCSE Law syllabus. Legal reasoning often follows structured steps similar to mathematical formulas – once you know the components, you can apply them to any scenario. This guide covers key areas of criminal law, tort law, contract law, human rights and statutory interpretation to aid revision and exam success.
本速查手册为 Edexcel GCSE 法律课程总结了基本的法律"公式"、检验标准和原则。法律推理通常遵循结构化的步骤，类似于数学公式——一旦掌握了这些组成部分，你就可以将其应用于任何情境。本指南涵盖了刑法、侵权法、合同法、人权法和法律解释等核心领域，助力复习与考试成功。
1. The 'But For' Test – Factual Causation | "若非"检验 – 事实因果关系
In negligence claims, the claimant must prove that the defendant's breach of duty caused the harm. The primary test is the 'but for' test: but for the defendant's negligence, would the claimant have suffered the loss? If the answer is 'no', factual causation is established. For instance, if a driver runs a red light and hits a pedestrian, but for the driver's breach, the pedestrian would not have been injured. The test was confirmed in Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969] where a doctor's failure to examine a patient was not the cause of death because the patient would have died anyway from arsenic poisoning.
在过失侵权索赔中，原告必须证明被告违反了注意义务并造成了损害。主要的检验标准是"若非"检验：若非被告的过失，原告是否会遭受损失？如果答案是"否"，则事实因果关系成立。例如，如果司机闯红灯撞到行人，若非司机的违规行为，行人就不会受伤。这一检验在 Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969] 案中得到确认，该案中医生未能检查病人并非死亡原因，因为病人即使得到治疗也会死于砷中毒。
2. Caparo Three-Part Test – Duty of Care | Caparo 三要素检验 – 注意义务
To establish a duty of care in novel situations, the courts apply the Caparo test from Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990]. Three elements must be satisfied: (1) foreseeability of harm – a reasonable person would foresee that the conduct could cause damage; (2) proximity – a close and direct relationship between the parties; (3) fair, just and reasonable – the court must consider it appropriate to impose a duty. This test built on the neighbour principle and is now the standard approach for all negligence cases.
在新类型案件中确立注意义务时，法院适用 Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990] 案所确立的 Caparo 检验。必须满足三个要素：（1）损害的可预见性——一个理性人能够预见到该行为可能造成损害；（2）邻近性——当事人之间存在密切而直接的关系；（3）公平、公正且合理——法院认为施加义务是适当的。这一检验建立在邻人原则之上，现已成为所有过失案件的标准方法。
3. The Neighbour Principle – Donoghue v Stevenson | 邻人原则 – Donoghue v Stevenson 案
The foundation of modern negligence law is Lord Atkin's neighbour principle from Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Your neighbour is any person who is so closely and directly affected by your act that you ought reasonably to have them in contemplation. This case established that manufacturers owe a duty of care to the ultimate consumers of their products, even without a contract.
现代过失法的基础是 Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] 案中阿特金勋爵提出的邻人原则。你必须采取合理的注意，避免你可以合理预见到可能伤害邻人的作为或不作为。你的邻人是指任何受到你的行为如此紧密且直接影响的人，以至于你应在合理范围内将其纳入考虑。该案确立了制造商对其产品的最终消费者负有注意义务，即使没有合同关系。
4. Contributory Negligence – Apportionment of Damages | 共同过失 – 损害赔偿的分摊
y Negligence) Act 1945. The reduction is expressed as a percentage reflecting the claimant's share of responsibility. Formula: Final damages = Full assessed damages times (100% minus claimant's fault percentage). For example, if the claimant was 30% contributorily negligent and total damages are £10,000, the award becomes £7,000. The court will assess each party's degree of fault based on the circumstances.
如果原告对其自身伤害负有部分责任，法院可以根据《1945年法律改革（共同过失）法》减少损害赔偿金。减少幅度以百分比表示，反映原告的责任份额。公式：最终赔偿金 = 评估的全额赔偿金乘以（100%减去原告的过错百分比）。例如，若原告有30%的共同过失，全额赔偿金为10,000英镑，则获赔7,000英镑。法院将根据案情评估双方的过错程度。
5. Criminal Liability Formula | 刑事责任公式
lity generally requires proof of two core elements beyond reasonable doubt: (1) Actus reus – the guilty act (conduct, consequence, or a state of affairs); (2) Mens rea – cessary. Some offences are strict liability, requiring no mens rea for at least part of the actus reus. Remember: Actus reus + mens rea + no defence = criminal liability.
刑事责任通常需要排除合理怀疑地证明两个核心要素：（1）犯罪行为（actus reus）——过错行为（行为、结果或状态）；（2）犯罪意图（mens rea）——过错心态（故意、轻率、明知或过失，取决于具体罪名）。此外，还必须不存在有效的辩护理由。某些犯罪属于严格责任犯罪，对部分犯罪行为不要求犯罪意图。记住：犯罪行为 + 犯罪意图 + 无辩护理由 = 刑事责任。
6. Theft – Section 1 Theft Act 1968 | 盗窃罪 – 《1968年盗窃法》第1条
Theft is defined in s1 Theft Act 1968: "A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it." To secure a conviction, five elements must be proved: (1) appropriation; (2) property; (3) belonging to another; (4) dishonesty (tested by the Ivey test in criminal law after Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017]); (5) intention to permanently deprive. All elements must occur simultaneously.
盗窃罪由《1968年盗窃法》第1条定义："任何人以非法占有为目的，不诚实地侵占属于他人的财产，意图永久剥夺他人对该财产的权利，即构成盗窃罪。" 要定罪，必须证明五个要素：（1）侵占；（2）财产；（3）属于他人；（4）不诚实（刑法中根据 Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] 案后的 Ivey 检验判断）；（5）永久剥夺的意图。所有要素必须同时存在。
7. Self-Defence – Reasonable Force | 自卫 – 合理武力
Self-defence (including defence of another) is a general defence to criminal charges. The defendant may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances as he honestly believes them to be. The key is that the force must be reasonable, not necessarily proportionate in a precise mathematical sense. The jury considers the accused's genuine belief, even if mistaken, and whether the level of force was objectively reasonable in that context. Excessive force will defeat the defence. Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 codifies the law.
自卫（包括防卫他人）是对刑事指控的一项一般辩护理由。被告人可以使用在其真诚相信的情况下所合理的武力。关键在于武力必须是合理的，不要求数学意义上的完全相称。陪审团考虑被告人真实的信念，即使是错误的，并判断在该情境下武力程度是否客观合理。过度武力将使辩护不成立。《2008年刑事司法与移民法》第76条将该法律成文化。
8. Contract Formation – Offer, Acceptance, Consideration | 合同成立 – 要约、承诺、对价
A legally binding contract requires: (1) Offer – a clear statement of terms by which the offeror intends to be bound (distinguish from invitation to treat, e.g., goods on display in a shop); (2) Acceptance – unconditional agreement to all terms of the offer, communicated to the offeror (postal rule may apply); (3) Consideration – something of value exchanged between the parties, which can be a benefit to the promisor or a detriment to the promisee; (4) Intention to create legal relations – presumed in commercial agreements but not in social/domestic arrangements; (5) Capacity and legality. Without any of these, no contract exists.
一份具有法律约束力的合同需要：（1）要约——要约人表明愿意受其约束的明确条款陈述（区分于要约邀请，如商店展示商品）；（2）承诺——对要约所有条款的无条件同意，并传达给要约人（可能适用投邮规则）；（3）对价——双方交换的有价值之物，可以是允诺人的利益或受允诺人的损害；（4）建立法律关系的意图——商业协议中推定存在，而社会/家庭安排中推定不存在；（5）行为能力与合法性。缺少任何一项，合同即不成立。
9. Personal Injury Damages Calculation | 人身伤害赔偿金计算
In tort claims, compensation for personal injury is split into two categories. General damages: non-pecuniary losses such as pain and suffering, loss of amenity (e.g., inability to enjoy hobbies). These are assessed by reference to judicial guidelines (Judicial College Guidelines). Special damages: financial losses that can be precisely calculated, including loss of earnings (past and future), medical expenses, travel costs, etc. The total compensation is the sum of general and special damages. Future losses may be discounted to present value using the Ogden tables.
在侵权索赔中，人身伤害赔偿金分为两类。一般损害赔偿：非金钱损失，如疼痛和痛苦、生活乐趣的丧失（例如无法享受爱好）。这些参照司法指引（司法学院指引）进行评定。特别损害赔偿：可以精确计算的金钱损失，包括收入损失（过去和未来）、医疗费用、交通费用等。总赔偿金为一般损害赔偿与特别损害赔偿之和。未来损失可能使用奥格登表折算为现值。
10. Murder and Voluntary Manslaughter – Partial Defences | 谋杀与自愿过失杀人 – 部分辩护理由
Murder is the unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being under the Queen's (King's) peace with malice aforethought (intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm). If a partial defence applies, the conviction is reduced to voluntary manslaughter. Three partial defences exist: (1) Diminished responsibility (s2 Homicide Act 1957 as amended) – an abnormality of mental functioning arising from a recognised medical condition which substantially impairs responsibility; (2) Loss of control (ss54-55 Coroners and Justice Act 2009) – loss of self-control caused by a qualifying trigger, and a person of the defendant's sex and age with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint might have done the same; (3) Suicide pact – surviving a genuine pact. If successful, the defendant avoids the mandatory life sentence for murder.
谋杀是指具有恶意预谋（故意杀人或造成严重身体伤害的意图）非法杀害女王（国王）治下的具有独立生命的生命体。如果部分辩护理由成立，定罪降为自愿过失杀人。存在三种部分辩护理由：（1）减轻责任（经修订的《1957年杀人法》第2条）——由公认医疗状况引起的心理功能异常，实质性损害了责任能力；（2）失控（《2009年验尸官与司法法》第54-55条）——因合格的触发因素导致自我控制丧失，且与被告人同性别、同年龄且具有正常容忍度和自控力的人在当时可能做出相同行为；（3）自杀协议——在真实协议中幸存。若辩护成功，被告人可避免谋杀罪的强制终身监禁刑。
11. Statutory Interpretation – The Four Rules | 法律解释 – 四大规则
Judges use four main rules to interpret statutes: (1) The Literal Rule – words are given their plain, ordinary dictionary meaning even if the
Published by TutorHao | Year 11 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