Summary offence

A summary offence is a crime in some common law jurisdictions that can be proceeded against summarily, without the right to a jury trial and/or indictment (required for an indictable offence).

Canada

In Canada, summary offences are referred to as summary conviction offences.[1] As in other jurisdictions, summary conviction offences are considered less serious than indictable offences because they are punishable by shorter prison sentences and smaller fines. These offences appear both in the federal laws of Canada and in the legislation of Canada's provinces and territories. For summary conviction offences that fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government (which includes all criminal law), section 787 of the Criminal Code specifies that, unless another punishment is provided for by law, the maximum penalty for a summary conviction offence is a sentence of 6 months of imprisonment, a fine of $5,000 or both.

As a matter of practical effect, some common differences between summary conviction and indictable offences are provided below.

Summary conviction offences

Indictable offences


Hong Kong

In Hong Kong, trials for summary offences are heard in one of the territory's Magistrates' Courts.

United Kingdom

In relation to England and Wales, the expression "summary offence" means an offence which, if committed by an adult, is triable only summarily; and the term "summary", in its application to offences, is to be construed accordingly. In this definition, references to the way in which an offence is triable are to be construed without regard to the effect, if any, of section 22 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 on the mode of trial in a particular case.[7]

Sir William Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, described summary offences thus:

By a summary proceeding I mean principally such as is directed by several acts of parliament (for the common law is a stranger to it, unless in the case of contempts) for the conviction of offenders, and the inflicting of certain penalties created by those acts of parliament. In these there is no intervention of a jury, but the party accused is acquitted or condemned by the suffrage of such person only, as the statute has appointed for his judge. An institution designed professedly for the greater ease of the subject, by doing him speedy justice, and by not harassing the freeholders with frequent and troublesome attendances to try every minute offence. But it has of late been so far extended, as, if a check be not timely given, to threaten the disuse of our admirable and truly English trial by jury, unless only in capital cases.

In the United Kingdom, trials for summary offences are heard in one of a number of types of lower court. For England and Wales this is the Magistrates' Court. In Scotland, it is the Sheriff Court or District Court, depending on the offence (the latter being primarily for the most minor of offences). Northern Ireland has its own Magistrates' Court system.

United States

In the United States, "there are certain minor or petty offenses that may be proceeded against summarily, and without a jury".[8][9] Any crime punishable by more than six months imprisonment must have some means for a jury trial.[10] Federal law is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 19. Some states, such as California, provide that all common law crimes and misdemeanors require a jury trial.[11][12] Some states provide that in all offenses the defendant may demand a jury trial. (Note that the right to trial by jury is the exclusive right of the defendant, if the defendant chooses to select a bench trial (trial by judge) the prosecution cannot object.)

Contempt of court is considered a prerogative of the court, as "the requirement of a jury does not apply to 'contempts committed in disobedience of any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command entered in any suit or action brought or prosecuted in the name of, or on behalf of, the United States'".[13] There have been criticisms over the practice. In particular, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wrote in a dissent, "It is high time, in my judgment, to wipe out root and branch the judge-invented and judge-maintained notion that judges can try criminal contempt cases without a jury."[14]

Also known as:

See also

References

  1. ↑ "Criminal Code". Government of Canada. Retrieved 20 June 2015.
  2. ↑ http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html#Arrest_without_Warrant_and_Release_from_Custody__1756491
  3. ↑ http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-i-1/latest/rsc-1985-c-i-1.html
  4. ↑ R v Clunas, [1992] 1 SCR 595
  5. ↑ http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html
  6. ↑ http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-i-1/latest/rsc-1985-c-i-1.html
  7. ↑ The Interpretation Act 1978, section 5 and Schedule 1 (in the heading "construction of certain expressions relating to offences"), as amended by section 154 of, and paragraph 169 of Schedule 7 to, the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.
  8. ↑ Callan v. Wilson, 127 U.S. 540 (1888)
  9. ↑ Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968)
  10. ↑ Lewis v. United States, 518 U.S. 322 (1996)
  11. ↑ Ex parte Wong You Ting, 106 Cal. 296 (1895)
  12. ↑ Taylor v. Reynolds, 92 Cal. 573
  13. ↑ United States v. Barnett, 376 U.S. 681 (1964)
  14. ↑ Callan v. Wilson, 127 U.S. 540 (1888)
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Wednesday, December 30, 2015. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.