📚 Year 11 AQA Law: Vocabulary & Terminology Quick-Reference Guide | AQA法律：词汇术语速记指南
Mastering legal vocabulary is essential for success in your AQA GCSE Law exam. This guide breaks down the most important terms you must know across criminal law, tort, contract, and the legal system. Understanding these key terms will help you analyse scenarios, apply legal principles, and write more precise answers.
掌握法律词汇是在AQA GCSE法律考试中取得成功的关键。本指南分解了你必须掌握的刑法、侵权法、合同法以及法律体系中最关键的术语。理解这些关键术语将帮助你分析情景案例、应用法律原则，并写出更准确的答案。
1. Criminal Law Core Terms: Actus Reus and Mens Rea | 刑法核心术语：犯罪行为与犯罪意图
Every crime requires a physical element, known as the actus reus. This can be a voluntary act, an omission (failure to act) in situations where there is a duty to act, or a state of affairs. For example, the actus reus of theft is the appropriation of property belonging to another.
每项犯罪都需要一个外部行为要素，即犯罪行为（actus reus）。这可以是自愿的作为、在具有作为义务情况下的不作为，或者某种事实状态。例如，盗窃罪的犯罪行为是侵占了属于他人的财产。
The mental element is the mens rea, which refers to the defendant's state of mind at the time of the offence. The highest level is intention (direct or oblique), followed by recklessness (consciously taking an unjustifiable risk), and in some crimes, negligence or strict liability applies. The case of R v Cunningham established the subjective test for recklessness.
心理要素是犯罪意图（mens rea），指被告在犯罪时的主观心态。最高级别是故意（直接故意或间接故意），其次是轻率（有意识地冒不合理风险），在某些犯罪中还可能适用过失或严格责任。R v Cunningham 案确立了判断轻率的主观检验标准。
It is also vital to remember that both actus reus and mens rea must coincide in time for most crimes, meaning the guilty act and guilty mind must be present simultaneously. If the actus reus is caused by an involuntary action, there may be no liability.
还必须牢记，就大多数犯罪而言，犯罪行为与犯罪意图必须在时间上同时发生，即犯罪行为和犯罪心理必须同时存在。如果犯罪行为是由非自愿的动作引起的，则可能不承担责任。
2. Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person: Assault, Battery, ABH, GBH | 非致命人身伤害罪行：威胁、殴打、实际身体伤害、严重身体伤害
Assault is defined as intentionally or recklessly causing another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence. No physical contact is required; words alone or even silent phone calls can suffice if they cause fear of immediate force.
威胁（Assault） 是指故意或轻率地使他人担心即将遭受直接且非法的暴力侵害。无需发生身体接触；仅凭言语甚至沉默的电话，只要引起对即时暴力的恐惧，即可构成。
Battery is the actual infliction of unlawful force on another person. This can be any unwanted touching, however slight, such as a push, a slap, or even spitting. Both assault and battery are common law offences and are often charged together as 'common assault'.
殴打（Battery） 是实际对他人施加非法暴力。这可以是任何讨厌的触碰，无论多么轻微，例如推搡、掌掴，甚至吐口水。威胁和殴打均为普通法罪行，经常被合并指控为 '普通侵犯人身罪'。
Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) is an offence under s.47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The actus reus is an assault or battery that occasions (causes) actual bodily harm. Harm includes any injury calculated to interfere with health or comfort, such as bruises, scratches, or psychiatric injury recognised by a medical expert. The mens rea is the same as for assault or battery – intention or recklessness as to the initial unlawful force.
实际身体伤害（ABH） 是《1861年侵犯人身罪法》第47条规定的罪行。其犯罪行为是造成实际身体伤害的威胁或殴打。伤害包括任何影响健康或舒适度的损伤，例如瘀伤、抓伤，或经医学专家认定的精神伤害。犯罪意图则与威胁或殴打相同——对初始非法暴力的故意或轻率。
Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) covers two main offences under the 1861 Act. s.20 GBH requires maliciously wounding or inflicting really serious harm (mens rea: intention or recklessness as to some harm). s.18 GBH requires unlawfully and maliciously wounding or causing GBH with intent to cause such harm or to resist arrest, carrying a maximum life sentence. The actus reus must involve 'really serious harm', including broken bones, deep cuts, or severe psychiatric damage.
严重身体伤害（GBH） 包含《1861年法》规定的两项主要罪行。第20条重伤要求恶意伤人或者造成真正严重伤害（犯罪意图：对部分伤害持故意或轻率心态）。第18条重伤则要求非法并恶意地伤人或者造成严重身体伤害，且具有造成该等伤害或抗拒逮捕的意图，最高可判处终身监禁。犯罪行为必须涉及 '真正严重的伤害'，包括骨折、深度割伤或严重精神损害。
3. Defences in Criminal Law: Self-Defence, Insanity, Duress | 刑事辩护事由：自卫、精神病、胁迫
Self-defence (and defence of another) allows reasonable force to be used to protect oneself, others, or property. The defendant must have honestly believed that force was necessary, and the degree of force used must be objectively reasonable in the circumstances, as assessed by the jury. Excessive force will defeat the defence.
自卫（及防卫他人）允许使用合理武力来保护自己、他人或财产。被告必须诚实地相信在当时情形下有必要使用武力，并且所使用的武力程度由陪审团客观断定是否合理。过度武力会使该辩护不成立。
Insanity is governed by the M'Naghten Rules. The defendant must prove on a balance of probabilities that, at the time of the act, they were suffering from a defect of reason arising from a disease of the mind, so that they did not know the nature and quality of their act, or did not know that what they were doing was wrong. If successful, the special verdict is 'not guilty by reason of insanity'.
精神病 受 M'Naghten 规则约束。被告必须依据概率平衡证明，在实施行为时，他们因精神疾病导致理性缺陷，因而不知道其行为的性质和后果，或者不知道所做之事是错误的。倘若辩护成功，特别裁决为 '因精神病而罪名不成立'。
Duress by threats is a defence where the defendant commits a crime because they were threatened with death or serious personal injury. The threat must be immediate or imminent, and the defendant must have had no reasonable avenue of escape. Duress is not available for murder or certain treason offences. The test has both a subjective and an objective element: the defendant believed the threat would be carried out, and a reasonable person sharing the defendant's characteristics would have acted in the same way.
胁迫（Duress） 是一项辩护事由，指被告因受到死亡或严重人身伤害的威胁而犯罪。威胁必须是即时或即将发生的，且被告没有合理逃避的途径。胁迫辩护不可用于谋杀及某些叛国罪。检验包含主观与客观两个方面：被告相信威胁会变成现实，并且一个具有被告相同特征的理性人也会以相同方式行事。
4. Tort Law: Duty of Care and Breach | 侵权法：注意义务与违反义务
Tort law deals with civil wrongs. The tort of negligence requires three elements: a duty of care, a breach of that duty, and damage caused by the breach. The foundation case Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) established the 'neighbour principle': you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. 'Neighbour' means persons who are so closely and directly affected by your actions that you ought to have them in contemplation.
侵权法处理民事过错。过失侵权 需要三个要素：注意义务、违反该义务，以及由违反而引起的损害。奠基案例 Donoghue v Stevenson（1932 年）确立了 '邻居原则'：你必须尽到合理注意，避免做出能够合理预见可能伤害到你邻居的行为或疏忽。'邻居' 是指那些因你的行为而受到密切而直接影响，以至于你应当将其纳入考虑范围的人。
Modern law follows the three-part test from Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990). A duty of care arises if the harm was reasonably foreseeable, there was sufficient proximity between the parties, and it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty. This test is applied in new situations not covered by precedent.
现代法律遵循 Caparo Industries v Dickman（1990 年）提出的三要素检验。注意义务的产生条件是：损害是可合理预见的、当事人之间存在充分的紧密关系，并且课以义务是公平、公正和合理的。该检验适用于无先例可循的新情况。
A breach of duty occurs when the defendant's conduct falls below the standard of the reasonable person. The classic definition comes from Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856): 'Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man ... would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.' The court will consider factors such as the likelihood of harm, the seriousness of the potential injury, the social utility of the activity, and the cost of taking precautions.
违反义务 发生情形是被告的行为低于理性人的标准。经典定义来自 Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co（1856 年）：'疏忽是指未做一个理性人会做的行为，或做了一个谨慎理性人不会做的行为。' 法院会考量伤害发生的可能性、潜在伤害的严重性、该活动的社会效益以及采取预防措施的成本等因素。
5. Tort Law: Causation and Damage | 侵权法：因果关系与损害
Once a breach of duty is established, the claimant must prove that the breach caused the damage. Factual causation is tested using the 'but for' test: but for the defendant's breach, would the claimant have suffered the loss at that time and in that way? The leading case is Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee (1969). If the damage would have occurred regardless, factual causation fails.
一旦确立了违反义务，原告必须证明该违反而引致了损害。事实因果关系 用 'but for' 检验来测试：如果没有被告的违约或侵权，原告当时是否会以那种方式遭受损失？主导案例是 Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee（1969 年）。若无论怎样损害都会发生，则事实因果关系不成立。
Legal causation asks whether the defendant's breach was a substantial and operating cause of the harm. It need not be the sole cause, but it must be more than a minimal cause. Intervening acts (novus actus interveniens) may break the chain of causation if they are unforeseeable or highly unreasonable.
法律因果关系 探究被告的违约或侵权行为是否为造成损害的重大且起作用的因素。不必是唯一原因，但须超越微不足道的程度。如果是不可预见或极不合理的介入行为（novus actus interveniens），则可能打破因果关系链。
Damage must not be too remote. Under the rule in The Wagon Mound (No 1) (1961), the defendant is liable only for damage of a type which was reasonably foreseeable at the time of the breach. The exact extent of the harm need not be foreseeable as long as the general type was. The 'egg-shell skull' rule is an exception: a defendant must take their victim as they find them, even if they suffer greater loss due to a pre-existing condition.
<
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