In Canada, summary offences are referred to as summary conviction offences. 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, 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 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 1 year after the act happened. 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 of the Criminal Code.
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.
Appeals of summary conviction offences go first to the highest trial court within the jurisdiction.
After Provincial Superior Court a further appeal would go to the Provincial Court of Appeal, 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 5 years provided the accused is not convicted of any further offences during that period.
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, which has a 3-year limitation period.
Police do not require a warrant to arrest under an indictable offence: see S.495 Criminal Code
Accused has to submit fingerprints when required to appear to answer to an indictable offence.
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 offence and the judge to hear it. A summary procedure can result in a summary conviction. A "summary offence" is one which, if charged to an adult, can only be tried by summary procedure. Similar procedures are also used in Scotland. Certain offences that may be tried in a Crown Court may be required to be tried summarily if the value involved is small; such offences are still considered either way offences, 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. Sir William Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, described summary offences thus: 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 Justice of the peace court, depending on the offence. Northern Ireland has its own Magistrates' Court system.
In the United States, "there are certain minor or petty offenses that may be proceeded against summarily, and without a jury". These include criminal citations. Any crime punishable by more than six months of imprisonment must have some means for a jury trial. Some states, such as California, provide that all common lawcrimes and misdemeanors require a jury trial. Some states provide that in all offenses the defendant may demand a jury trial. 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. There have been criticisms over the practice. In particular, Supreme Court JusticeHugo 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."
