📚 OCR Law Year 12 Formula & Principle Quick Reference | OCR 法律 Year 12 公式定理速查手册
Welcome to your Year 12 OCR Law quick reference handbook. Law may not contain mathematical equations, but it is built on precise legal 'formulae' where rules, elements and defences combine to determine liability. This guide distills key topics – from criminal liability to tort and contract – into clear, memorable principles. Each section presents a core rule or formula, followed by its explanation and leading case authority, helping you to apply the law with academic rigour.
欢迎使用 Year 12 OCR 法律速查手册。法律或许没有数学公式，但它建立在精确的法律“公式”之上：规则、要素与抗辩事由相结合，决定责任的有无。本指南将关键主题——从刑事责任到侵权与合同——提炼为清晰易记的原理。每一节展示一条核心规则或公式，并附以解释和主要判例权威，帮助你以学术严谨性适用法律。
1. Criminal Liability Formula | 刑事责任基本公式
The core equation for establishing criminal guilt is: Actus Reus (guilty act) + Mens Rea (guilty mind) − Defence = Criminal Liability. Both elements must be present at the same time for a crime to be committed, unless the offence is one of strict liability, where mens rea is not required for at least part of the actus reus. The prosecution bears the burden of proving all elements beyond reasonable doubt (Woolmington v DPP [1935]).
确立刑事罪责的核心公式是：犯罪行为（Actus Reus） + 犯罪心态（Mens Rea） − 抗辩事由 = 刑事责任。除非是严格责任犯罪（至少部分犯罪行为无需犯罪心态），两个要素必须同时存在方可构成犯罪。控方承担证明所有要素超出合理怀疑的责任（Woolmington v DPP [1935]）。
- Actus reus can be a positive act, an omission where a duty exists (R v Pittwood [1902]), or a state of affairs (R v Larsonneur [1933]).
- 犯罪行为可以是积极行为、存在义务时的不作为（R v Pittwood [1902]），或状态犯（R v Larsonneur [1933]）。
- Mens rea types include intention (direct or oblique – R v Woollin [1999]), recklessness (R v Cunningham [1957]), negligence, and knowledge.
- 犯罪心态类型包括意图（直接或间接——R v Woollin [1999]）、轻率（R v Cunningham [1957]）、过失和明知。
- Causation links actus reus to result: factual causation ('but for' test – R v White [1910]) and legal causation (operating and substantial cause – R v Smith [1959]).
- 因果关系连接犯罪行为与结果：事实因果关系（“若无则不”检验——R v White [1910]）和法律因果关系（有效且实质原因——R v Smith [1959]）。
2. Non‑Fatal Offences Against the Person Formula | 非致命人身侵害犯罪公式
ult = Act causing victim to apprehend immediate unlawful force + intention or recklessness. Battery = Infliction of unlawful personal force + intention or recklessness. These are common law offences defined in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, s.39. No physical contact is required for assault (R v Ireland [1998] – silent phone calls can suffice); battery requires actual touching (Collins v Wilcock [1984]).
威胁（Assault）= 引起被害人担心即将遭受非法暴力的行为 + 意图或轻率。 殴打（Battery）= 施加非法人身暴力 + 意图或轻率。这是由《1988年刑事审判法》第39条界定的普通法罪行。威胁无需身体接触（R v Ireland [1998]——无声电话可构成）；殴打须实际触碰（Collins v Wilcock [1984]）。
- More serious non‑fatal offences under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861:
- 《1861年人身侵害罪法》中更严重的非致命罪行：
- s.47: Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) – base assault/battery + harm that is more than transient or trifling (R v Miller [1954]).
- 第47条：威胁/殴打致实际身体伤害（ABH）——基本威胁/殴打 + 高于暂时或轻微程度的伤害（R v Miller [1954]）。
- s.20: Malicious wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm (GBH) – 'maliciously' means intention or recklessness as to some harm (R v Mowatt [1968]).
- 第20条：恶意伤人致重伤（GBH）——“恶意”指意图或轻率造成某种伤害（R v Mowatt [1968]）。
- s.18: Wounding or causing GBH with intent – specific intent to cause serious harm (R v Belfon [1976]).
- 第18条：意图重伤的伤人——有造成严重伤害的特定意图（R v Belfon [1976]）。
3. Property Offences: Theft Formula | 财产犯罪：盗窃罪公式
property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it (Theft Act 1968, s.1). Each of the five elements must be satisfied: appropriation (s.3), property (s.4), belonging to another (s.5), dishonesty (s.2 – now assessed by the Ivey [2017] test), and intention to permanently deprive (s.6).
盗窃 = 不诚实地占有属于他人的财产，并具有永久剥夺他人财产的意图（《1968年盗窃法》第1条）。五个要素均须满足：占有（第3条）、财产（第4条）、属于他人（第5条）、不诚实（第2条——现根据 Ivey [2017] 案检验标准判定）和永久剥夺意图（第6条）。
- The Ivey test for dishonesty: (1) what was the defendant's actual state of knowledge or belief as to the facts? (2) in that context, was the conduct dishonest according to the standards of ordinary decent people?
- Ivey 不诚实检验： (1) 被告对事实实际的认知或信念如何？ (2) 在此情形下，按照普通正直人士的标准，行为是否不诚实？
- + use or threat of force immediately before or at the time of stealing, in order to steal.
- 抢劫（第8条）= 盗窃 + 在盗窃即将进行时或盗窃当时为实施盗窃而使用或威胁使用暴力。
- r + intent to commit theft, GBH or unlawful damage (or committing such an offence once inside).
- 入室盗窃（第9条）= 作为侵入者进入 + 意图实施盗窃、重伤或非法毁坏（或进入后实施了此类犯罪）。
4. Homicide: Murder and Voluntary Manslaughter Formula | 杀人罪：谋杀与自愿非预谋杀人公式
Murder = Unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the King's peace with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought means intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (R v Cunningham [1982]). If that intention is present but a partial defence succeeds, the charge is reduced to voluntary manslaughter.
谋杀 = 非法杀害有理智的存活的自然人，且怀有恶意预谋。恶意预谋指意图杀人或造成重伤（R v Cunningham [1982]）。若存在此意图，但部分抗辩成功，指控则降为自愿非预谋杀人。
- Partial defences reducing murder to voluntary manslaughter:
- 将谋杀降为自愿非预谋杀人的部分抗辩：
- Loss of control (Coroners and Justice Act 2009, ss.54‑55): qualifying trigger (fear of serious violence or things said/done which constitute circumstances of an extremely grave character and caused a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged) + a person of D's sex and age with normal tolerance and self‑restraint might have reacted similarly.
- 失去控制（《2009年死因裁判官与司法法》第54-55条）：合格触发因素（对严重暴力的恐惧，或所说/所做之事构成极其严重的性质并引起一种正当的严重委屈感）+ 与被告同性别同年龄、具有正常容忍度和自控力的人可能作出类似反应。
- Diminished responsibility (Homicide Act 1957, s.2 as amended): abnormality of mental functioning arising from a recognised medical condition which substantially impaired D's ability to understand the nature of conduct, form a rational judgment, or exercise self‑control.
- 减轻责任（经修正的《1957年杀人法》第2条）：由公认的医疗状况引起的精神功能异常，严重削弱了被告理解行为性质、作出理性判断或行使自控的能力。
5. Involuntary Manslaughter Formula | 非自愿非预谋杀人公式
s an unlawful act + act is dangerous (sober and reasonable person would foresee some harm) + act causes death. The leading case is DPP v Newbury [1977]. No need to prove D foresaw any harm. The unlawful act must be a crime, not a tort (R v Lamb [1967]).
非法行为非预谋杀人 = 被告实施非法行为 + 行为具有危险性（清醒且理智的人会预见到某种伤害） + 行为导致死亡。主要判例为 DPP v Newbury [1977]。无需证明被告预见到任何伤害。非法行为必须是刑事犯罪，而非侵权（R v Lamb [1967]）。
- Gross negligence manslaughter: D owed a duty of care; breached that duty; breach caused death; breach was so grossly negligent as to justify criminal conviction (R v Adomako [1994]; R v Rose [2017] clarified 'reasonable foreseeability of obvious and serious risk of death').
- 重大过失非预谋杀人：被告负有关注义务；违反了该义务；违反行为导致死亡；违反行为达到极其严重的过失程度，应受刑事定罪（R v Adomako [1994]；R v Rose [2017] 明确了“对明显且严重的死亡风险具有合理可预见性”）。
6. General Defences Formula | 一般抗辩事由公式
A successful defence negates liability even where actus reus and mens rea are established. Key defence formulae:
成功的抗辩事由即使在犯罪行为与犯罪心态均成立时也能否定责任。关键抗辩公式：
- Insanity (M' son from disease of the mind + D did not know the nature and quality of the act or did not know it was wrong.
- 精神错乱（M'Naghten规则 [1843]）= 因精神疾病导致的理性缺陷 + 被告不知行为性质与质量，或不知行为错误。
- control caused by an external factor (not a disease of the mind), such as a blow to the head or hypoglycaemic episode (R v Quick [1973]).
- 自动症 = 由外部因素（非精神疾病）导致的完全丧失自主控制，例如头部受击或低血糖发作（R v Quick [1973]）。
- Self‑ n need for defence + reasonable degree of force in circumstances (Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, s.76; R v Palmer [1971]).
- 自我防卫 = 诚实且真实地相信有必要防卫 + 在当时情况下使用合理程度的武力（《2008年刑事审判与移民法》第76条；R v Palmer [1971]）。
- Intoxication: Voluntary intoxication is no defence to basic intent crimes but may negate mens rea for specific intent crimes (DPP v Majewski [1977]). Involuntary intoxication may provide a defence if it negates mens rea.
- 醉酒：自愿醉酒不是基本意图犯罪的抗辩，但可能否定特定意图犯罪的犯罪心态（DPP v Majewski [1977]）。非自愿醉酒若否定犯罪心态，可提供抗辩。
7. Tort Law Formula: Negligence | 侵权法公式：过失侵权
ligence = Duty of care + Breach of that duty + Causation of damage + Damage not too remote. This is the structural formula for establishing liability in the most common tort.
过失侵权 = 关注义务 + 违反该义务 + 造成损害 + 损害非过于疏远。这是确立最常见侵权责任的结构公式。
- Duty of care: neighbour principle (Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]); modern three‑stage test: foreseeability of damage, proximity, and fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty (Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990]).
- 关注义务：邻人原则（Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]）；现代三阶段检验：损害可预见性、关联性，以及施加义务公平、公正且合理（Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990]）。
- Breach: D falls below the standard of the reasonable man (Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks [1856]); factors include likelihood of harm, seriousness of harm, cost of precautions, social value of activity (Watt v Hertfordshire CC [1954]).
- 违反义务：被告未达到合理人的标准（Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks [1856]）；考量因素包括损害可能性、严重性、预防成本、活动的社会价值（Watt v Hertfordshire CC [1954]）。
- Causation: 'but for' test (Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington HMC [1969]); where multiple causes, material contribution test (Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw [1956]) or material increase in risk (McGhee v National Coal Board [1973], Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services [2002]).
- 因果关系：“若无则不”检验（Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington HMC [1969]）；多因情形下适用实质贡献检验（Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw [1956]）或风险实质增加检验（McGhee v National Coal Board [1973], Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services [2002]）。
- Remoteness: damage must be of a type that was reasonably foreseeable (The Wagon Mound (No 1) [1961]). The egg‑shell skull rule applies to extent of personal injury (Smith v Leech Brain [1962]).
- 损害疏远性：损害类型须合理可预见（The Wagon Mound (No 1) [1961]）。蛋壳脑袋规则适用于人身伤害的严重程度（Smith v Leech Brain [1962]）。
8. Occupiers' Liability Formula | 占用人责任公式
Occupiers' Liability = Occupier of premises + owes a duty of care to lawful visitors (Occupiers' Liability Act 1957) or trespassers (OLA 1984) + breach of that duty causes damage. The two Acts operate under similar structure but with different standards.
占用人责任 = 场所占用人 + 对合法访客（《1957年占用人责任法》）或侵入者（《1984年占用人责任法》）负有关注义务 + 违反该义务造成损害。两部法律结构相似但标准不同。
| OLA 1957 (Lawful Visitors) | 1984年法（合法访客） | OLA 1984 (Trespassers) | 1984年法（侵入者） |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to take such care as is reasonable to see visitor is reasonably safe (s.2(2)) | 采取合理注意确保访客合理安全（第2(2)条） | Duty owed only if three conditions (s.1(3)): aware of danger, knows trespasser may be in vicinity, risk is one against which occupier can reasonably offer protection | 仅在满足三项条件时负有义务（第1(3)条）：知情危险、知晓侵入者可能附近、风险属占用人可合理提供保护的风险 |
| Child visitors require extra care (s.2(3)(a) – 'an allurement'); tradesmen should guard against special risks of their calling (s.2(3)(b)) | 儿童访客需特别谨慎（第2(3)(a)条——“诱惑物”）；专业访客应防范其职业特殊风险（第2(3)(b)条） | Duty is to take such care as is reasonable to see trespasser does not suffer injury (s.1(4)) | 义务是采取合理注意确保侵入者不遭受人身伤害（第1(4)条） |
9. Tort of Nuisance Formula | 妨害侵权公式
Private Nuisance = Unlawful interference with a person' some right over it) + defendant in control of the land + claimant has interest in the land. The interference must be indirect (e.g. noise, smells, vibrations) and unreasonable. Public nuisance is a crime and tort where an act or omission materially affects the comfort and convenience of a class of Her Majesty's subjects.
私人妨害 = 非法干扰他人对土地的使用或享用（或对土地的某种权利） + 被告控制该土地 + 原告对土地享有权益。干扰须为间接（如噪音、气味、振动）且不合理。公共妨害是犯罪及侵权，指一项行为或不作为实质影响女王陛下臣民中一类人的舒适和便利。
- Factors for unreasonableness in private nuisance: locality (Sturges v Bridgman [1879]), duration, sensitivity of claimant (Robinson v Kilvert [1889]), malice (Christie v Davey [1893]), and public benefit.
- 私人妨害不合理性考量因素：地点（Sturges v Bridgman [1879]）、持续时间、原告敏感性（Robinson v Kilvert [1889]）、恶意（Christie v Davey [1893]）和公共利益。
- Remedies include injunction and damages. The defence of prescription (20 years' continuation) and statutory authority may apply.
- 救济包括禁令和损害赔偿。时效抗辩（持续20年）和法定授权抗辩可适用。
10. Vicarious Liability Formula | 替代责任公式
d by a tortfeasor + who is in a relationship akin to employment with the defendant + and the tort is closely connected to that relationship (Catholic Child Welfare Society v Various Claimants [2012]; Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016]). This formula allows an innocent employer to be held liable for the wrongs of employees committed during the course of employment.
替代责任 = 侵权人实施侵权 + 其与被告存在类似于雇佣的关系 + 且该侵权与该关系紧密相关（Catholic Child Welfare Society v Various Claimants [2012]；Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016]）。此公式使无辜雇主为雇员在雇佣期间实施的过错承担责任。
- Stage 1: Relationship – traditional employment contract or akin to employment (e.g., prisoner working in prison kitchen).
- 第一步：关系——传统雇佣合同或类似于雇佣（如监狱厨房工作的囚犯）。
- Stage 2: Close connection – wrongful act so closely connected to employment that it is fair and just to hold employer liable (Lister v Hesley Hall [2001]; Mohamud v Morrison Supermarkets [2016]).
- 第二步：紧密联系——不法行为与雇佣关系紧密相连，令雇主承担责任公平公正（Lister v Hesley Hall [2001]；Mohamud v Morrison Supermarkets [2016]）。
11. Contract Formation Formula | 合同成立公式
Valid Contract = Offer + Acceptance + Consideration + Intention to create legal relations. Each element must be present, and there must be no vitiating factor such as misrepresentation, duress or illegality.
有效合同 = 要约 + 承诺 + 对价 + 建立法律关系的意图。每一要素须具备，且不得存在虚假陈述、胁迫或违法等瑕疵因素。
- Offer: expression of willingness to contract on specified terms, made with the intention that it is to become binding upon acceptance (Storer v Manchester City Council [1974]). Invitation to treat is not an offer (Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots [1953]).
- 要约：表明愿意按照特定条款订立合同，并意图一经承诺即受约束（Storer v Manchester City Council [1974]）。要约邀请不构成要约（Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots [1953]）。
- Acceptance: unqualified assent to all terms of the offer; must be communicated (Entores v Miles Far East Corp [1955]), except where postal rule applies (Adams v Lindsell [1818]).
- 承诺：对要约全部条款的无条件同意；必须传达（Entores v Miles Far East Corp [1955]），邮寄规则适用时除外（Adams v Lindsell [1818]）。
- Consideration: something of value given by both parties; must be sufficient but need not be adequate (Thomas v Thomas [1842]); past consideration is not good consideration (Re McArdle [1951]).
- 对价：双方提供的有价值之物；必须充分但无需相当（Thomas v Thomas [1842]）；过去的对价不构成有效对价（Re McArdle [1951]）。
- Intention: presumed in commercial agreements (Edwards v Skyways [1964]); presumed absent in domestic/social arrangements unless rebutted (Balfour v Balfour [1919]).
- 意图：商业协议中推定存在（Edwards v Skyways [1964]）；家庭/社交安排中推定不存在，除非被推翻（Balfour v Balfour [1919]）。
12. Contractual Terms and Breach Formula | 合同条款与违约公式
m (condition, warranty or innominate term) has been breached + loss suffered by claimant + not too remote. The classification of a term determines the remedy available. A condition is a vital term going to the root of the contract (Poussard v Spiers [1876]); breach entrañes the right to terminate and claim damages. A warranty is a minor term (Bettini v Gye [1876]); breach gives rise to damages only.
违约与救济 = 条款（条件、保证或中间条款）被违反 + 原告遭受损失 + 损失非过于疏远。条款的类型决定可用救济。条件是涉及合同根基的重要条款（Poussard v Spiers [1876]）；违反可导致终止合同并索赔。保证是次要条款（Bettini v Gye [1876]）；违反仅产生损害赔偿。
- Innominate term approach (Hong Kong Fir Shipping v Kawasaki Kisen [1962]): if breach substantially deprives the innocent party of the whole benefit, it is treated as a condition; otherwise as a warranty.
- 中间条款方式（Hong Kong Fir Shipping v Kawasaki Kisen [1962]）：若违约实质剥夺了无过错方的全部利益，按条件处理；否则按保证处理。
- Remedies: Damages put the claimant in the position as if the contract had been performed (expectation interest – Robinson v Harman [1848]). Remoteness: loss must be reasonably foreseeable or within contemplation of parties (Hadley v Baxendale [1854]).
- 救济：损害赔偿旨在使原告处于合同如被履行的状态（期待利益——Robinson v Harman [1848]）。疏远性：损失须合理可预见或在双方预期之内（Hadley v Baxendale [1854]）。
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