Anatomy of a law report
Any law reports, whether of the full text or summary type, needs to contain certain fundamental pieces of information in order to justify its being cited in support of a proposition of law.
任何法律报告，无论是全文还是摘要类型，都需要包含某些基本信息，以证明其可以被引用支持法律命题。
First of all, it must have a title, usually based on the names of the parties. It must identify the court giving judgment, and the date on which it was given.
首先，它必须有一个标题，通常基于当事人的名称。必须标明作出裁决的法院，以及裁决作出的日期。
Most fundamentally, it needs to contain a statement of the principle of law decided in the case. The statement should ideally be expressed as a rule or proposition which can be applied in subsequent cases even if the facts are not the same. It will usually be taken from the words actually used by the judge(s) but it may be condensed in some way and put into reported rather than quoted speech. The most highly evolved form of such a statement is to be found in the modern headnote of a full text law report as published by ICLR.
最基本的是，它需要包含在案件中确定的法律原则的陈述。该陈述理想情况下应表达为一个规则或命题，即使事实并非相同，也可以应用于随后的案件。通常会采用法官实际使用的措辞，但可能会以某种方式简化，并以报道形式而非引用形式呈现。这种陈述的最高形式可在 ICLR 出版的完整法律报告的现代摘要中找到。
Finally, to reassure the reader of the reliability of the report, the reporter must be a qualified lawyer, and this must be evident either from the report itself or the publication in which it appears.
最后，为了让读者相信报告的可靠性，记者必须是一名合格的律师，这一点必须从报告本身或出版物中显而易见。
The above five elements (title, court, date, principle of law, reporter) constitute the bare minimum for a summary report. But most reports contain a number of other elements, most notably the full text of the judgment(s) in the case and the names of the judge(s).
以上五个要素（标题、法院、日期、法律原则、报告员）构成了摘要报告的最低要求。但大多数报告包含许多其他要素，其中最重要的是案件中判决的全文以及法官的姓名。
What follows is a more detailed explanation of all the various elements of a modern full text law report, such as is published in The Law Reports, listed in the order in which they appear. The illustrations are based on the PDF of this full text law report which it may be helpful to download and view alongside.
接下来是对现代全文法律报告的各种要素的更详细解释，例如在《法律报告》中发表的报告，按照它们出现的顺序列出。这些示例是基于这份全文法律报告的 PDF，可能有助于下载并与之一起查看。
1. Court 1. 法院
Usually the first thing an ICLR report will state is the court from which it is taken. This appears at the top of the first page, and is abbreviated in the running heads.
通常，ICLR 报告的第一件事情是说明报告所引用的法院。这会出现在第一页的顶部，并在页眉中进行了缩写。
In some series, the name of the court can only be identified by reference to the volume or publication in which the case appears. For example, cases appearing in the Chancery series of the Law Reports are assumed to be in the Chancery Division of the High Court, unless they are identified as having been decided in the Court of Appeal or, on a reference from the High Court or the Court of Appeal, the Court of Justice of the European Union.
在某些系列中，法院的名称只能通过参考案件出现的卷册或出版物来确定。例如，在《法律报告》的产权系列中出现的案件被认为是在高等法院的产权法庭，除非它们被确认为在上诉法院或者在高等法院或上诉法院的引用下，欧洲联盟法院做出的裁决。
2. Title 2. 标题
The basic rule 基本规则
Most case titles are expressed in the form of one party’s (the claimant’s) surname versus (Latin for “against”) another’s (the defendant’s). In civil cases, this appears as Smith v Jones but is conventionally pronounced as “Smith and Jones”.
大多数案件标题以一方（原告）的姓氏对另一方（被告）的形式表达。在民事案件中，这表现为 Smith v Jones，但通常发音为“Smith and Jones”。
Criminal cases are almost always prosecuted by the Crown, using the Latin for “queen” (Regina) or “king” (Rex). Most criminal cases therefore take the form of Regina, Reg or R v Brown. It is conventionally pronounced “Queen (or King) against Brown”.
刑事案件几乎总是由皇室起诉，使用拉丁文中的“女王”（Regina）或“国王”（Rex）。因此，大多数刑事案件采用 Regina、Reg 或 R v Brown 的形式。按照惯例发音为“女王（或国王）诉 Brown”。
Variations 变更
Some criminal cases or appeals are maintained the name of the Director of Public Prosecutions, or DPP, instead of the Crown: eg Brown v DPP.
一些刑事案件或上诉案件中保留了公诉总监的名称，即 DPP，而不是皇冠：例如 Brown 诉 DPP。
However references by the Attorney General to the Court of Appeal following an acquittal do not use the defendant’s name, just a reference number: Attorney General’s Reference (No 1 of 2011). Some civil case titles take other forms, eg In re Smith’s Estate (“in the matter of” Smith’s estate), In re A (A child) or In re Jones Co Ltd (in liquidation).
然而，检察长在被告被无罪释放后向上诉法院提出的参考案例并不使用被告的姓名，而是使用一个参考编号：检察长参考案（2011 年第 1 号）。一些民事案件的标题采用其他形式，例如 In re Smith's Estate（“关于”Smith 的遗产），In re A（一名儿童）或 In re Jones Co Ltd（处于清算中）。
Judicial review claims (against public authorities alleging breaches of public law), though civil proceedings, are also brought in the name of the Crown, acting “on the application of” (or as it used to be, “ex parte”) the name of the applicant, thus taking the form of: R (Smith) v Secretary of State for Justice or, for older cases, R v Westminster City Council, Ex parte Jones.
Admiralty actions in rem (Latin for “thing” or “matter”) involving a ship are brought in the name of the ship: The Titanic. However, ordinary shipping claims involving litigating parties (claims “in personam”) should not use the name of the ship as a title, though they often do as a form of shorthand: Smith Shipping Coprn v Jones Insurers (The Mary Rose).
3. Date
The full date of judgment is essential both as a matter of record and to avoid confusion between different cases with similar names or even different decisions in the course of the same litigation.
Hearing dates are an optional but obviously useful addition. (For example, they could help indicate that a case had been heard by the court before an important judgment given in another case, which if known about could have affected the course of argument, or the judgment.)
Where judgment has been reserved, rather than being given directly at the conclusion of the hearing, this should be indicated in the report. (For more on this, see Judgment, below.)
4. Judge(s)
The identity of the judge, as well as that of the court where the hearing took place, is an essential element of any law report. Whilst it may be possible when discussing a case to identify it as “a decision of the Court of Appeal”, or to mention that such-and-such a case was “reversed by the House of Lords” in a subsequent appeal, no report of the relevant decision of the Court of Appeal or House of Lords could be relied upon which did not identify the “constitution” of the court, ie list the names of the judges sitting on the bench, even if they did not all give judgment.
Where more than one judge was sitting, it is also essential to identify which judge or judges gave judgment. Usually this is done by setting out the relevant judge’s name at the beginning of their judgment. Where one or more judges dissent from the decision of the others, this too must be clearly stated in the report.
在有多名法官参与的情况下，确定是哪位法官作出了裁决也是至关重要的。通常，这是通过在裁决书开头列出相关法官的姓名来完成的。如果有一名或多名法官对其他法官的决定持不同意见，这也必须在报告中明确说明。
In some older reports, the name of the judge can only be inferred from the series or volume in which the report appears. You may need to know, for example, who was Vice-Chancellor at the time, and this is sometimes only apparent from information printed at the front of the volume.
在一些较旧的报告中，法官的姓名只能从报告所在的系列或卷册中推断出来。例如，您可能需要知道当时是谁担任副校长，有时这只能从卷册前面印刷的信息中明显看出。
5. Catchwords 5. 捕捉关键词
Catchwords serve two essential functions. First, they identify the position of the case in a taxonomy of legal subject matters. Secondly, they encapsulate in abbreviated form the issues in the case and any words, phrases or legislative provisions construed by the court.
Catchwords serve two essential functions. First, they identify the position of the case in a taxonomy of legal subject matters. Secondly, they encapsulate in abbreviated form the issues in the case and any words, phrases or legislative provisions construed by the court.
关键词具有两个基本功能。首先，它们确定案件在法律主题分类中的位置。其次，它们以缩写形式概括案件中的问题以及法院解释的任何单词、短语或立法条款。
The first three words or phrases identify the subject matter with increasing particularity according to a taxonomical structure. The first one (eg “Crime” or “Landlord and tenant”) gives a very broad indication of the type of case. The second (eg “Theft” or “Forfeiture of lease”) narrows it down a bit, and the third (eg “Dishonest appropriation” or “Relief from forfeiture”) identifies its subject matter with still more precision. These three levels of particularity are reflected in the hierarchical headings in the Subject Matter index section of the ICLR Consolidated Index, where cases are listed according to their subject matter, and where it is therefore possible to find similar cases listed in the same place (an invaluable research tool).
前三个词或短语根据分类结构逐渐明确标识主题。第一个词（例如“犯罪”或“房东和租客”）非常广泛地指示案件类型。第二个词（例如“盗窃”或“租约没收”）稍微缩小范围，第三个词（例如“不诚实占有”或“免除租约没收”）更精确地标识其主题。这三个级别的明确性反映在 ICLR 综合索引的主题索引部分的分层标题中，案例根据其主题列出，因此可以在同一位置找到类似案例（一种宝贵的研究工具）。
The remainder of the catchwords set out briefly what the issues in the case were. They identify in inverted commas any words or phrases which the court has defined, and list any statutory provisions or other national or international legislation, conventions etc which the court has considered and ruled upon.
捕获词余下的部分简要说明了案件中的问题。它们用引号标识法院已定义的任何单词或短语，并列出法院已考虑并裁定的任何法定条款或其他国家或国际立法、公约等。
Note: Though catchwords appear in the report, and can help one see at a glance what the case is about, they are not a telegraphic form of headnote, and they do not state the decision. They are essentially an indexing tool, a way of categorising rather than of summarising the case.
注意：尽管报告中出现了提要词，并且可以帮助人们一目了然地了解案件的内容，但它们并不是一种摘要形式的法条，也不陈述裁决。它们本质上是一种索引工具，一种分类而非总结案件的方式。
6. Headnote 6. 标题
A headnote is a summary, appearing at the beginning of a full text law report, encapsulating as precisely as possible the principle of law which the case establishes.
头注是一份摘要，出现在完整法律报告的开头，尽可能准确地概括案件确立的法律原则。
In some cases, this may consist of little more than a bald proposition, which in older reports used to be contained in a sidenote. In most modern reports, however, the headnote will take a bipartite form in which the first part will outline the relevant facts and issues, and the second, in a separate paragraph or paragraphs, continuing after the word “Held,” will set out the proposition(s) of law. This structure enables readers quickly and easily to ascertain what the case was about and identify the point of law decided.
在某些情况下，这可能仅仅是一个简单的命题，而在旧报告中，这种情况通常会包含在旁注中。然而，在大多数现代报告中，案情提要将采取一个双重形式，其中第一部分将概述相关事实和问题，而第二部分将在一个单独的段落或几个段落中，在“裁定”一词之后继续，阐明法律命题。这种结构使读者能够快速轻松地了解案情的要点，并确定所作法律裁决的要点。
In a few cases, a propositional headnote is more appropriate, particularly where the facts are largely irrelevant to any understanding of the principle, and would, if included, simply distract readers from the point of the case. Sometimes this will be followed by a brief statement of the court’s application of the principle to the facts.
在少数情况下，命题性的题注更为合适，特别是当事实与原则的理解基本无关，如果包括在内，只会让读者从案件要点中分心。有时会跟随法院将原则应用于事实的简要陈述。
Although the headnote adds value to the report of a judgment, it is the judgment itself which sets the precedent and binds subsequent decision-makers.
尽管案情提要为判决报告增添了价值，但真正具有先例效力并约束后续决策者的是判决本身。
Nevertheless, a good headnote is a work of meticulous legal draftsmanship and can withstand the closest of textual scrutiny. Accuracy is all. Make the proposition too general, and the principle appears either so watered down as to be meaningless or, more dangerously, misleadingly wide in its application. Draw it too narrowly, and it fails to express the principle on which the court based its decision. At its best, a headnote is a precious distillation – the single malt of legal learning.
然而，一个好的标题是一项细致的法律起草工作，并且能经受最严格的文本审查。准确性至关重要。如果提出的命题过于笼统，原则要么变得无关紧要，要么更危险地在适用范围上误导性地扩大。如果提出的命题过于狭窄，就无法表达法院作出裁决的原则。在最好的情况下，一个标题是一种宝贵的提炼 - 法律学习的单一麦芽酒。
7. The blocklists: cases referred to or cited
7. 封锁名单：涉及或引用的案例
Where earlier cases have been judicially considered by the court in formulating a principle of law, this is noted in the headnote. Cases may have been followed or applied, or merely considered, or they may have been disapproved or overruled. In the case of a decision being appealed, they will have been affirmed or reversed by the higher court.
在制定法律原则时，法院在司法审查过程中曾考虑过早期案例，这一点在案头注中有所记录。案例可能被采纳或应用，或仅仅被考虑，或者可能被否定或推翻。在决定被上诉的情况下，它们将被上级法院确认或推翻。
But not all cases mentioned in a judgment will have been subject to such particular treatment, and it is therefore useful to have a list of all the cases referred to, together with their main report references and, for judgments given in the 21st century, their neutral citations.
但并非判决中提到的所有案件都经过了这种特殊处理，因此有必要列出所有提到的案件清单，以及它们的主要报告参考文献，对于在 21 世纪作出的判决，还应包括它们的中立引用。
What distinguishes ICLR reports from those of almost all other publishers is the fact that they also list, separately, the additional cases cited in argument and, where appropriate, cases not cited in oral argument but referred to in counsel’s skeleton arguments (written summaries of submissions exchanged in advance of the hearing).
ICLR 报告与几乎所有其他出版商的区别在于，它们还单独列出了在辩论中引用的额外案例，以及在律师的骨架陈述中提到但未在口头辩论中引用的案例（在听证会之前交换的提交摘要的书面总结）。
These lists of cases are referred to generically as “blocklists”. The reporting references given for cases, where more than one such reference is available, are arranged in order of their citation status, with the Law Reports reference being given first (since this must be cited in preference to any other version), followed by the Weekly Law Reports, specialist series published by the ICLR, and then various series, such as the All England Law Reports and Lloyd’s Law Reports, from other publishers. This is also the order in which such references are given in the Consolidated Index, which indexes all the reports published in these and in certain other widely used series.
8. The facts and procedural history
What is sometimes referred to as the “facts paragraph” is a brief introduction to the case, giving the full names of the parties and outlining the nature and history of the proceedings (action, application, appeal etc) between them from their commencement to the current hearing.
Additional information provided here may include a summary of the claims, or the grounds of appeal taken from the appellant’s notice, or the case stated by a lower court on an appeal by case stated.
In some older reports, the facts of the case are also summarised here, rather than being set out in full in the judgment from which they are taken, so that only that part of the judgment dealing with the law and its application to the facts is reproduced.
9. Appearances
The names of counsel (barristers) and/or solicitor advocates are given in order of seniority. In more recent reports, these are followed by the names of the solicitors who instructed them. (In older cases, the solicitors’ names are listed at the end of the report.)
The names are grouped according to the parties they represented, in the order in which they would have been heard in court, ie claimant first at first instance, appellant first on appeal.
10. Argument
Where a summary of counsel’s submissions is included in the report, this is set out after the name(s) of counsel who presented it. The summary is based on the oral submissions actually given in court during the hearing, which the reporter has attended in person, supplemented by the skeleton arguments.
The note of argument can demonstrate exactly what points were put to the court, and which cases and materials were cited in support of those points. It is a feature which adds enormously to the value of the report to future readers. It can also help establish whether a particular point was before the court, for example where it is suggested that a particular decision was arrived at “per incuriam” (ie without reference to a critical authority).
This summary of argument is a feature unique to the Law Reports published by the ICLR (no other English series regularly includes it) and is only possible by virtue of the fact that the ICLR’s reporters routinely attend court during the hearing and arguing of cases, and not merely when judgment is given. Once the reporter has prepared a note of argument, a copy is sent to the counsel concerned for them to check and approve its accuracy.
11. Judgment(s)
The largest and most important element of a full text law report is the judgment or judgments given in the case. The version used in the report is based on an authorized transcript, approved by the court as an accurate record. It is, however, then subject to a number of editing processes. First, the reporter checks all the references to, and quotations from, other cases, textbooks, statutes and other published materials in the judgment. The text of the judgment is brought into conformity with the ICLR’s “house style” with regard to dates, certain kinds of recognised abbreviations, modes of citation and so forth. Factual references such as dates, sums of money etc are checked for accuracy and consistency.
Once the reporter has handed in the report, it is subedited and edited in-house, and the references and quotations in the judgment are double-checked to ensure complete accuracy. When the report is complete, a proof copy, including the edited version of the judgment, is sent to the judge or judges for their approval. Although judges are welcome to comment on the headnote or other aspects of the report, the main purpose of sending them the proof is for them to approve the judgment. Any queries or anomalies can be brought to their attention at this stage and it is not uncommon for judges themselves to propose minor textual alterations at this stage.
As a result of these processes, the version of the judgment included in a full text law report published by ICLR is more authoritative and reliable than the transcript.
Where judgment has been reserved, rather than being given “ex tempore” at the conclusion of the oral hearing, it is preceded by the words “Cur adv vult” (curia advisari vult, Latin for “the court wishes to be advised”) or “The court took time for consideration”.
12. Orders
At the conclusion of the judgment, there is a brief statement of the orders afterwards given by the court. If there has been an application for leave to appeal, the decision whether or not to grant it will also be recorded.
13. Reporter
To ensure their accuracy and reliability, law reports must be written and edited by qualified lawyers, ie barristers or solicitors.
Where the name of the reporter is given in full, it will be accompanied by the word “barrister” or “solicitor”; but for the reporters of the ICLR who have been officially appointed to cover particular courts, and whose names and qualifications are listed in the front of the published volume, only their initials are given on the actual report.
