Editing Summary offence

{{Short description|Crime tried without a jury}}
{{Criminal law}}
[[File:Melbourne Magistrates Court - William Street.jpg|thumb|right|The [[Melbourne Magistrates' Court]]. In [[Victoria (Australia)|Victoria, Australia]], all summary offences are heard in the [[Magistrates' Court of Victoria|Magistrates' Court]]]]
A '''summary offence''' or '''petty offence''' is a [[violation of law|violation]] in some [[common law]] jurisdictions that can be proceeded against summarily,<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/petty%20offense |title=petty offense |publisher=Merriam-Webster}}</ref><ref name="petty offense"/><ref>See also Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule {{frcrp|58}}("Petty Offenses and Other Misdemeanors")</ref> without the right to a [[jury trial]] and/or [[indictment]] (required for an [[indictable offence]]).<ref name="Alabama v. Shelton"/>

==Canada==
In [[Canada]], summary offences are referred to as '''summary conviction offences'''.<ref>{{cite web|title=Criminal Code|url=http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/|publisher=Government of Canada|access-date=20 June 2015}}</ref>  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 (including all [[criminal law]]), section 787 of the [[Criminal Code (Canada)|Criminal Code]] specifies that, unless another punishment is provided for by law, the maximum penalty for a summary conviction offence is a sentence of 2 years less a day 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===
* Accused must be charged with a summary conviction within one year after the act happened. <ref> Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C - 46, s 786(2)</ref> Limitation periods are set out in the Criminal Code.
* The police can arrest under summary conviction without an arrest warrant if found committing a summary offence notwithstanding s. 495(2)(c) of the Criminal Code.<ref>{{cite web|url=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|title=Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46|website=canlii.org|access-date=5 May 2025}}</ref>
* If the police do not find committing a summary offence, an arrest warrant is required.
* Accused does not have to submit fingerprints when charged under Summary Conviction.<ref name="canlii.org">{{cite web|url=http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-i-1/latest/rsc-1985-c-i-1.html|title=Identification of Criminals Act, RSC 1985, c I-1|website=canlii.org|access-date=5 May 2025}}</ref>
* Appeals of summary conviction offences go first to the highest trial court within the jurisdiction (e.g., provincial superior court in Alberta is the [[Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta|Court of King's Bench]]).
* After Provincial Superior Court a further appeal would go to the Provincial Court of Appeal (e.g., the [[Court of Appeal of Alberta]]), and then finally to the [[Supreme Court of Canada]], but as a practical matter very few summary convictions are ever heard by the Supreme Court of Canada.
* Accused convicted under summary conviction are eligible for a pardon after five years provided the accused is not convicted of any further offences during that period.
* Always tried in a provincial court (cannot be joined with an indictable offence in a superior court).<ref>R v Clunas, [1992] 1 SCR 595</ref>

===Indictable offences===
* There is no time limit to when charges can be laid, such that an accused can be charged at any time after an act has occurred. The exception to this point is [[Treason#Canada|treason]], which has a 3-year limitation period.
* Police do not require a warrant to arrest under an indictable offence: see S.495(1)(a) Criminal Code<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html#sec495.1ca|title=Arrest without warrant – application of section 524|website=canlii.org|access-date=19 March 2018}}</ref>
* Accused has to submit fingerprints when required to appear to answer to an indictable offence.<ref name="canlii.org"/>
* Appeals always go to the Provincial Court of Appeal first, and then on to the Supreme Court of Canada.
* Accused convicted under an indictable offence can apply for a pardon after 10 years.

== Hong Kong==
In Hong Kong, trials for summary offences are heard in one of the territory's [[Magistrates' Court (Hong Kong)|Magistrates' Court]]s, unless the defendant is accused with other [[indictable offence]](s).  Typical examples for summary offences in Hong Kong include possession of a simulated [[bomb]], drunkenness, taking photographs in courts, [[careless driving]] and pretending to be a [[public officer]]. <ref name='clic1'>{{cite web |title=I have heard of "summary offences" and "indictable offences". What are the differences between the two and which court can try these offences? |url=https://www.clic.org.hk/en/topics/policeAndCrime/court_procedure/q2 |website=Community Legal Information Centre |access-date=20 April 2021}}</ref>

==New Zealand==
Under [[New Zealand law]], summary offences are covered by the Summary Offences Act 1981,<ref>{{Cite act|type=Act|date=23 October 1981|legislature=New Zealand Parliament|title=Summary Offences Act 1981|url=https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1981/0113/latest/DLM53348.html}}</ref> and include offences that resemble [[forgery]], [[fraud]], [[nuisance]], as well as offences against public order. It also covers some aspects of [[Search and seizure|search]], [[arrest]] and [[jurisdiction]], as well as regulating the sale of [[spray paint]].

==United Kingdom==
In relation to [[England and Wales]], the expression "summary trial" means a trial in the [[magistrates' court]]. In such proceedings there is no jury; the appointed judge, or a panel of three lay magistrates, decides the guilt or innocence of the accused. Each summary offence is specified by statute which describes the (usually minor) offence and the judge to hear it. A summary procedure can result in a summary conviction.<ref>{{cite web|title=Summary offences and the Crown Court|url=https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/summary-offences-and-crown-court|website=CPS|publisher=Crown Prosecution Service|access-date=19 March 2018}}</ref> A "summary offence" is one which, if charged to an adult, can only be tried by summary procedure.<ref name="Interpretation Act s. 5">The [[Interpretation Act 1978]], section 5 and Schedule 1 (in the heading [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30/schedule/1/crossheading/construction-of-certain-expressions-relating-to-offences "construction of certain expressions relating to offences"]), as amended by section 170 of, and paragraph 59 of Schedule 15 to, the [[Criminal Justice Act 1988]], and by section 154 of, and paragraph 169 of Schedule 7 to, the [[Magistrates' Courts Act 1980]].</ref> Similar procedures are also used in Scotland.

Certain offences that may be tried in a Crown Court (by jury) may be required to be tried summarily if the value involved is small; such offences are still considered [[either way offence]]s, so are not thereby "summary offences" in the meaning of that term defined by statute. Contrariwise, certain summary offences may in certain circumstances be tried on indictment along with other offences that are themselves indictable; they do not thereby become "indictable offences" or "either way offences" but remain "summary offences", though tried by jury.<ref name="Interpretation Act s. 5"/>

Sir [[William Blackstone]], in his [[Commentaries on the Laws of England]] (1765–1769), described summary offences thus:

{{quote|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 (England and Wales)|Magistrates' Court]]. In [[Scotland]], it is the [[Sheriff Court]] or [[Justice of the peace court]], depending on the offence (the latter being primarily for the most minor of offences). [[Northern Ireland]] has its own [[Courts of Northern Ireland|Magistrates' Court system]].

== United States ==
In United States [[law of the United States|federal]] and [[State_law_(United_States)|state law]], "there are certain minor or petty offenses that may be proceeded against summarily, and without a jury".<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://cite.case.law/us/127/540/#p552 |title=Callan v. Wilson, 127 U.S. 540 (1888) |page=552 |date=May 14, 1888 |work=U.S. Supreme Court |publisher=Harvard Law School}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://cite.case.law/us/391/145/#p146 |title=Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968) |page=146 |date=May 20, 1968 |work=U.S. Supreme Court |publisher=Harvard Law School}}</ref><ref name="Alabama v. Shelton">{{Cite web |url=https://cite.case.law/us/535/654/#footnote_1_10 |title=Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U.S. 654 (2002) |page=670 n.&nbsp;10 |date=May 20, 2002 |work=U.S. Supreme Court |publisher=Harvard Law School |quote=In [[Pennsylvania]], for example, all [[defendant]]s charged with [[misdemeanor]]s enjoy a right to counsel regardless of the sentence imposed, '''''only those charged with 'summary offenses' (violations not technically considered crimes and punishable by no more than 90 days' imprisonment''''',&nbsp;... may receive a suspended sentence uncounseled. (Typical 'summary offenses' in Pennsylvania include the failure to return a library book within 30 days... and fishing on a Sunday&nbsp;...}} (citations omitted) (emphasis added).</ref> These can include criminal and civil citations, where a person may be charged with a criminal or non-criminal infraction without the need of a physical arrest, such as in cases of non-violent fineable violations, crimes that carry little incarceration time, or non-criminal acts such as speeding.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://cite.case.law/us/535/654/#footnote_1_10 |title=Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U.S. 654 (2002) |page=670 n.&nbsp;10 |date=May 20, 2002 |work=U.S. Supreme Court |publisher=Harvard Law School |quote=In [[Pennsylvania]], for example, all [[defendant]]s charged with [[misdemeanor]]s enjoy a right to counsel regardless of the sentence imposed, only those charged with 'summary offenses' (violations not technically considered crimes and punishable by no more than 90 days' imprisonment,&nbsp;... may receive a suspended sentence uncounseled. (Typical 'summary offenses' in Pennsylvania include the failure to return a library book within 30 days... and fishing on a Sunday&nbsp;...}} (citations omitted).</ref>  Any crime that is punishable by the controlling law for more than six months of [[imprisonment]] must have some means for a jury trial.<ref name="petty offense">{{USC|18|19}} ("Petty offense defined"); {{Cite web |url=https://cite.case.law/us/518/322/#p323 |title=Lewis v. United States, 518 U.S. 322 (1996) |page=323 |date=June 24, 1996 |work=U.S. Supreme Court |publisher=Harvard Law School}}</ref> Some states, such as [[California]], provide that all [[defendant]]s are entitled to a jury trial (irrespective of the nature of their offenses).<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://cite.case.law/cal/106/296/#p297 |title=Ex parte Wong You Ting, 106 Cal. 296 (1895) |page=297 |date=March 9, 1895 |work=Supreme Court of California |publisher=Harvard Law School}}</ref> In any case, for summary criminal offenses in the United States, convictions can still show as such on a criminal record.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://cite.case.law/f3d/386/1022/#p1025 |title=Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022 |page=1025 |date=September 28, 2004 |work=U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit |publisher=Harvard Law School |quote=During a hearing on remand, Adefemi acknowledged several other convictions and arrests, including the circumstances surrounding Georgia Citation Number 0129, under which Adefemi received a citation for a weapons violation.}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://cite.case.law/f3d/494/723/#p724 |title=Awad v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 723 |page=724 & n.&nbsp;2 |date=July 20, 2007 |work=U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit |publisher=Harvard Law School}}</ref>

[[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".<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://cite.case.law/us/376/681/#p688 |title=United States v. Barnett, 376 U.S. 681 (1964) |page=688 |date=April 6, 1964 |work=U.S. Supreme Court |publisher=Harvard Law School}} (quotation marks omitted)</ref> There have been criticisms over the practice. In particular, [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] Justice [[Hugo Black]] wrote in a 1964 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."<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://cite.case.law/us/376/681/#p727 |title=United States v. Barnett, 376 U.S. 681 (1964) |page=727 |date=April 6, 1964 |work=U.S. Supreme Court |publisher=Harvard Law School |editor=[[Hugo Black|Justice Black]], dissenting}}</ref>

== See also ==
* [[Misdemeanor]]
* [[Indictable offence]]
* [[Summary execution]]
* [[Hybrid offence]]

== Notes and references ==
{{Reflist}}

==Further reading==
*{{Cite journal |url=https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol94/iss3/9/ |title=Petty Offenses, Serious Consequences: Multiple Petty Offenses and the Sixth Amendment Right to Jury Trial |first=Jeff E. |last=Butler |journal=Michigan Law Review |date=1995 |volume=94 |issue=3|pages=872–896 |doi=10.2307/1289950 |jstor=1289950 }}
*{{Cite journal |url=https://socialchangenyu.com/review/petty-offense-exception-in-new-york-the-accused-prostitutes-right-to-a-jury-trial-the/ |title=The Petty Offense Exception in New York: The Accused Prostitute's Right to a Jury Trial |page=|publisher=The Harbinger |first=Hallie |last=Michelena |journal=N.Y.U. Review of Law & Social Change |date=|volume=II |issue=2}}

==External links==
*{{Cite web |url=https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/explainers/why-it-s-time-to-repeal-petty-offense-laws |title=Why It's Time to Repeal Petty Offense Laws |publisher=Open Society Foundations |date=May 2021}}
*{{Cite web |url=https://www.fcgov.com/municipalcourt/petty-offense |title=Petty Offense |publisher=Fort Collins Municipal Court}}

{{English criminal law navbox}}
{{Types of crime}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Summary Offence}}
[[Category:Criminal law]]
[[Category:Crimes]]