📚 Year 11 AQA Law: Quick Reference Formulas and Theorems | AQA法律公式定理速查手册
This revision guide recasts the key building blocks of AQA GCSE Law as memorable 'formulas' and 'theorems' – a powerful way to lock in definitions, element checks and case principles. From criminal liability to negligence and contract, each section condenses exam-critical content into a clean expression you can scribble in the margin of an answer booklet.
本复习指南将AQA GCSE法律的核心建构模块改写成便于记忆的「公式」与「定理」——这是牢固掌握定义、要素检查与判例原则的高效方法。从刑事责任到过失侵权再到合同法，每个主题都把考试关键内容浓缩成一个清晰的表达式，方便你在答题时随手写出。
1. Criminal Liability Formula | 刑事责任公式
The bedrock of every crime, except strict liability offences, is captured by this equation: prosecution must prove actus reus and mens rea, while the defence may defeat liability by raising a recognised defence. If any of the three elements is missing or successfully challenged, the accused is not guilty.
除严格责任犯罪外，所有犯罪的基石都可用以下等式概括：控方必须证明犯罪行为和犯罪意图，而辩方可能通过提出获认可的抗辩消灭责任。若三个要素中任何一个欠缺或被成功质疑，被告即不构成犯罪。
Actus Reus + Mens Rea – Valid Defence = Criminal Liability
- Actus reus: the guilty act (or omission where a duty exists), must be voluntary.
- Mens rea: the guilty mind, ranging from intention (direct or oblique) to recklessness.
- Defence examples: self-defence, duress, insanity, automatism, intoxication.
- 犯罪行为：有罪的行为（或存在法律义务时的不作为），必须是自愿的。
- 犯罪意图：有罪的心理，可从故意（直接或间接故意）到轻率。
- 抗辩举例：自卫、胁迫、精神错乱、无意识行为、醉酒。
2. Causation Chain | 因果关系链公式
Where the offence requires a consequence (e.g. murder, ABH), the prosecution must establish both factual and legal causation. Factual causation asks 'but for' the defendant's conduct, would the result have occurred? Legal causation asks whether the defendant's act was the operating and substantial cause, and whether the chain was broken by a novus actus interveniens.
当犯罪要求特定结果时（如谋杀、实际身体伤害），控方必须同时证明事实因果关系与法律因果关系。事实因果关系问的是「若无」被告的行为，该结果是否还会发生？法律因果关系则追问被告的行为是否构成有效且实质的原因，以及因果链条是否被新介入行为打断。
Factual ('But For') Causation + Legal (Substantial & Operating) Causation – Novus Actus Interveniens = Causation Established
Key case: R v White [1910] – D put cyanide in mother's drink, but she died of a heart attack before drinking. 'But for' test failed. R v Smith [1959] – stab wound was still the operating cause despite poor medical treatment. Compare R v Jordan [1956] where medical treatment was 'palpably wrong' and broke the chain.
关键案例：R v White [1910]——被告将氰化物放入母亲的饮料，但她在此之前死于心脏病发作，「若无」检验不成立。R v Smith [1959]——尽管医疗不当，刀伤仍是有效原因。对比 R v Jordan [1956]，医疗处置「明显错误」，中断了因果链。
3. Mens Rea Matrix | 犯罪意图类型矩阵
AQA expects you to distinguish levels of fault precisely. The table below maps each mental state to its definition and typical offences. Use it as a quick 'translation table' when analysing scenario questions.
AQA要求你准确区分不同层级的过错心理。下表将每种心态映射到其定义和典型犯罪，可作为分析情景题时的快速「翻译表」。
| Mens Rea / 犯罪意图 | Definition / 定义 | Typical use / 适用犯罪 |
|---|---|---|
| Direct intention | D's aim or purpose was to bring about the result. | Murder, s.18 GBH |
| Oblique intention | Result was a virtual certainty of D's actions and D appreciated that (R v Woollin). | Murder (if jury finds intention) |
| Recklessness | D foresaw a risk of the result occurring and unreasonably took that risk (R v Cunningham subjective test). | s.20 GBH, s.47 ABH, criminal damage |
| Gross negligence | D owed a duty of care, breached it in a way that involved a risk of death, and the breach was so gross as to be criminal (R v Adomako). | Gross negligence manslaughter |
4. Non-Fatal Offences Hierarchy | 非致命犯罪阶梯公式
Think of non-fatal offences as a ladder defined by the severity of harm and mens rea. For a quick answer structure, write the 'ingredients' as a formula: the offence label on the left, its actus reus and matching mens rea on the right.
可将非致命犯罪视为一张由伤害严重程度和犯罪意图定义的阶梯。快速答题时，把「配料」写成公式：左侧标明犯罪名称，右侧列出犯罪行为与对应的犯罪意图。
Assault = Causing V to Apprehend Immediate Unlawful Force (Intention/Recklessness)
Battery = Infliction of Unlawful Personal Force (Intention/Recklessness)
ABH = Assault/Battery + Actual Bodily Harm (Intention/Recklessness as to assault/battery)
ding/GBH = Unlawful Wounding or Infliction of GBH (Intention/Recklessness as to some harm)
tent = Unlawful Wounding or Causing GBH (Specific Intention to cause GBH or resist arrest)
Remember the key authorities: R v Ireland [1997] – silent phone calls can constitute assault. R v Constanza [1997] – words alone may cause apprehension. R v Miller [1954] – battery can be a continuation. R v Roberts [1971] – ABH can be caused indirectly.
牢记关键判例：R v Ireland [1997]——无声电话可构成意图恐吓；R v Constanza [1997]——仅语言即可引起恐惧；R v Miller [1954]——殴打可以是持续动作；R v Roberts [1971]——实际身体伤害可间接造成。
5. Theft Equation | 盗窃罪公式
Section 1 Theft Act 1968 is a definitional formula you must reproduce precisely. The five main components – appropriation, property, belonging to another, dishonesty and intention to permanently deprive – form a checklist that must all be proved simultaneously. Drop one element and the theft charge fails.
《1968年盗窃法》第1条是一条你必须精准复述的定义公式。五个主要组成部分——侵占、财产、属于他人、不诚实、永久剥夺的意图——构成一份必须同时满足的清单。缺少任一要素，盗窃指控即不成立。
priation + Property + Belonging to Another + Dishonesty + Intention to Permanently Deprive
Use the statutory tests: s.3 Appropriation includes assuming any of the rights of an owner, with consent (R v Gomez) or without. s.4 Property includes money, real property, things in action, intangible property. s.5 Belonging to another includes possession or control. s.2 Dishonesty – apply the common law Ivey v Genting test: what was the defendant's knowledge and belief of the facts, and was the conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people? s.6 Intention to permanently deprive – treat the property as your own regardless of the owner's rights (R v Lavender).
使用法定检验标准：第3条侵占包括行使所有权人的任何一项权利，无论是否经同意（R v Gomez）。第4条财产包括货币、不动产、诉讼上的物、无形财产。第5条属于他人包括占有或控制。第2条不诚实——适用普通法 Ivey v Genting 检验：被告对事实的知晓与信念是什么，以及按照普通正派人士的标准该行为是否不诚实？第6条永久剥夺的意图——将财产视为自己的财产而不顾所有者权利（R v Lavender）。
6. Negligence Tort Formula | 过失侵权公式
Negligence is the most examined civil claim. Condense it into the three-step Caparo test, plus a fourth step for damage and causation. Treat this as a mathematical proof: every element must be ticked before the claimant wins.
过失侵权是考试中最常出现的民事诉讼。将它浓缩为三步 Caparo 检验，外加第四步损害与因果关系。将其视为数学证明：每一项都必须打勾，原告才能胜诉。
Care + Breach of Duty + Causation (Factual & Legal) + Damage = Successful Negligence Claim
- Duty of care: neighbour principle (Donoghue v Stevenson) refined by Caparo v Dickman – foreseeability of harm, proximity, and fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty.
- Breach: D fell below the standard of the reasonable person (Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks). Factors include likelihood of harm, seriousness, cost of precautions, social utility.
- Causation: 'but for' test (Barnett v Chelsea Hospital) and remoteness – harm must be reasonably foreseeable (The Wagon Mound).
- Damage: claimant must have suffered recognised loss (personal injury, property damage, psychiatric harm with restrictions). Defences may reduce or extinguish the claim (contributory negligence, volenti).
- 注意义务：邻人原则（Donoghue v Stevenson）经 Caparo v Dickman 细化——损害的可预见性、近邻关系、施加义务公平公正合理。
- 违反义务：被告低于合理人的行为标准（Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks）。考量因素包括损害发生的可能性、严重性、预防成本、社会效用。
- 因果关系：「若无」检验（Barnett v Chelsea Hospital）与损害的遥远性——损害必须是合理可预见的（The Wagon Mound）。
- 损害：原告必须遭受公认的损失（人身伤害、财产损害、附限制的精神伤害）。抗辩可能减少或消灭索赔（与有过失、自愿承受风险）。
7. Occupiers' Liability Acts 1957 & 1984 | 占用人责任法公式
Treat the two Occupiers' Liability Acts as parallel formulas: one for lawful visitors, the other for trespassers. The premises, occupier, danger and duty are assessed differently depending on the visitor's status, so state the correct Act at the start of your answer.
将两部《占用人责任法》视为并行的公式：一部适用于合法访客，另一部适用于侵入者。场所、占用人、危险与义务因访客身份不同而评价各异，因此答题一开始就要指明适用哪部法律。
OLA 1957 Claim = (Occupier of Premises + Lawful Visitor + 'Common Danger'?) + Breach of Common Duty of Care + Loss
sser + Danger due to State of Premises) + Knows of Danger + Reasonable to Offer Protection – Warnings
Under the 1957 Act, the occupier must take reasonable care to see that the visitor is safe for the purposes for which he is invited (Wheat v Lacon on who is an occupier; Glasgow Corp v Taylor on child visitors). Under the 1984 Act, the duty is more limited: the occupier must know of the danger, know a trespasser is likely to be in the vicinity, and the risk is one which in all the circumstances it is reasonable to offer some protection against (Tomlinson v Congleton BC – no duty to protect against own foolhardy actions).
依1957年法，占用人须采取合理谨慎以确保访客在受邀目的范围内安全（Wheat v Lacon 关于谁是占用人；Glasgow Corp v Taylor 关于儿童访客）。依1984年法，义务范围更窄：占用人须知晓危险、知晓侵入者可能处于附近，且该风险在整体情况下合理要求提供某种保护（Tomlinson v Congleton BC——不对自己的鲁莽行为负有保护义务）。
8. Contract Formation Equation | 合同成立公式
A binding contract requires four ingredients: offer, acceptance, consideration and intention to create legal relations. If the exam presents a scenario about whether a contract was formed, run through this formula element by element.
具有约束力的合同需要四个要素：要约、承诺、约因和建立法律关系的意图。若考题给出一个场景询问合同是否成立，请逐一对照该公式的要素进行检验。
Valid Contract = Offer + Acceptance + Consideration + Intention to Create Legal Relations
Offer: a definite statement of terms, as opposed to an invitation to treat (Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots – goods on shelf are invitation to treat; Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co – a unilateral offer). Acceptance: a final and unqualified assent to all terms, communicated to the offeror (Felthouse v Bindley – silence is not acceptance; postal rule in Adams v Lindsell). Consideration: something of value exchanged, must be sufficient but need not be adequate (Chappell v Nestlé); past consideration is not good consideration. Intention: social and domestic agreements are presumed not to intend legal relations (Balfour v Balfour), commercial agreements are presumed to intend them (Esso Petroleum v Commissioners of Customs & Excise).
要约：对条款的确定陈述，区别于要约邀请（Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots——货架陈列商品为要约邀请；Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co——单方要约）。承诺：对全部条款最终、无条件的同意，并通知要约人（Felthouse v Bindley——沉默不构成承诺；Adams v Lindsell 投邮规则）。约因：交换的有价值之物，必须充分但无需相当（Chappell v Nestlé）；过去的约因不是有效约因。意图：社交与家庭协议推定无意建立法律关系（Balfour v Balfour），商业协议推定具有该意图（Esso Petroleum v Commissioners of Customs & Excise）。
9. Contract Terms Classification | 合同条款分类公式
Once a contract is formed, the terms can be express or implied by statute, custom or the courts. The severity of the term determines the remedy: condition, warranty, or innominate term. Use the following 'remedy map' to decide whether the innocent party can terminate the contract or only claim damages.
合同一旦成立，条款可以是明示的，也可以由法规、惯例或法院默示。条款的严重性决定了救济方式：条件条款、保证条款或中间条款。用下面的「救济地图」来判断无辜方是否有权解除合同，或仅可请求损害赔偿。
Condition → Breach Allows Repudiation + Damages
Warranty → Damages Only
Innominate Term → Deprivation of Substantially Whole Benefit? Yes → Repudiation + Damages; No → Damages Only
A condition is a term that goes to the root of the contract (Poussard v Spiers – failure to perform on opening night was a condition). A warranty is a minor term (Bettini v Gye – missing rehearsals was a warranty). The innominate term approach comes from Hong Kong Fir Shipping v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha – look at the effect of the breach. Additionally, implied terms under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and Sale of Goods Act 1979 (satisfactory quality, fitness for purpose, description) protect buyers and are often examined.
条件条款是触及合同根基的条款（Poussard v Spiers——首演之夜未履行构成违反条件）；保证条款是次要条款（Bettini v Gye——缺席排练仅违反保证）。中间条款方法源自 Hong Kong Fir Shipping v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha——考察违约的后果。此外，《2015年消费者权益法》与《1979年货物买卖法》中的默示条款（满意质量、符合用途、与描述相符）保护买方，常作为考点。
10. Criminal Defences Selector | 刑事抗辩选择公式
Defences can reduce a charge (partial) or lead to complete acquittal (full). A well-structured answer first identifies the applicable defence from the facts, then lifts its 'formula' from memory. The following expressions help you decide which defence fits.
抗辩事由可以降低指控（部分抗辩）或导致完全无罪释放（完全抗辩）。结构良好的答案应首先从案情中识别可适用的抗辩，然后凭记忆调用其「公式」。下列表达式有助于判断适用哪种抗辩。
Honest Belief of Need + Reasonable Force (s.3 Criminal Law Act 1967, s.76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008)
Threat of Death or Serious Injury + Imminent + No Reasonable Evasion + Not Self-Induced (R v Howe – not available for murder; R v Graham – two-limb test)
c intent crimes, can provide lack of MR if not specific intent) vs Involuntary (full defence if MR absent) – DPP v Majewski, R v Kingston
Insanity follows the M'Naghten rules: defect of reason arising from a disease of the mind causing D not to know the nature and quality of the act, or not to know it was wrong. Automatism is an external factor causing total loss of voluntary control (R v Quick – hypoglycaemia; R v Hill v Baxter – not mere drowsiness). Both can lead to a special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity or simple acquittal for automatism. In murder, the three partial defences – diminished responsibility (s.2 Homicide Act 1957 as amended by s.52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009), loss of control (s.54-55 CJA 2009), and suicide pact – reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter.
精神错乱遵循M'Naghten规则：因精神疾病导致的理性缺陷，致使被告不知行为的性质与质量，或不知行为为错误。无意识行为是因外部因素导致完全丧失自主控制（R v Quick——低血糖；R v Hill v Baxter——仅困倦不够）。两者均可导致因精神错乱而罪名不成立的特别裁决，或无意识行为直接无罪。在谋杀罪中，三项部分抗辩——减轻责任（《1957年杀人法》第2条经《2009年验尸官和司法法》第52条修订）、失去自控（《2009年刑事司法法》第54-55条）和自杀协议——可将谋杀降至非预谋杀人。
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