Comparison of summary and indictable offences

samslade

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/justice/criminal-law/criminal-offences/classification-of-crimes-in-criminal-cases

Aside from the information linked above, I am aware that summary offences are not reported in the papers while indictable offences may be reported in the papers (I assume because cases in the district court are unlikely to be of interest to journalists rather than because of a legal requirement).

What other differences are there in practice?
Would it always be a good idea for someone to accept being tried for a summary offence rather than an indictable one?
Are there differences in how evidence is treated?

Our man in Havana

Summary offences are often reported in the papers. Minor assaults, road tax, insurance, tv licence offences are all summary offences. These are the bread and butter of the provincial rags.

As for being tried for a summary offence over an indictable one, it is swings and roundabouts really. By opting for a summary trial you lessen the possible penalty as the punishments imposed by the district courts is limited, the downside is it is just the judge deciding on your guilt or innocence.

If you were to opt for a trial under indictment, your guilt or innocence will be decided by a jury of 12 of your peers. But the sting in the tail is that the punishments that can be handed out are much worse than what a district court can give. So you have to weigh up the pros and cons carefully.

As for the treatment of evidence, in a summary trial the evidence is presented on the day to the judge, i.e. you don't get to see it beforehand. In a trail on indictment the state must prepare a book of evidence and serve it on you prior to the trial. This book should contain all the evidence such as statements etc that the state intend to use against you at trial.

I hope this helps.

dats_right

Firstly, lets clear up a common misconception there is no automatic right for an accused to have his case disposed of summarily or on indictment. i.e. there is no general right for an accused to opt to have a case heard before a jury (indictment) or before a judge alone (summarily). In essence therefore the major differences between the two modes of trial are; a) summary=judge alone, indictment= judge+jury; b) summary = speedy & more informal procedure.

Also it is not correct to state that:

Bond-007 wrote: »

As for the treatment of evidence, in a summary trial the evidence is presented on the day to the judge, i.e. you don't get to see it beforehand.

, as since DPP -v- Gary Doyle [1994] 2 I.R. 286 ('the Gary Doyle case'), which recognised the existence of a legal obligation on the prosecutor to furnish the defendant with statements and details of evidence to be led by the prosecutor. It is only in the most minor of minor offences that a Gary Doyle Order isn't requested or granted (e.g. TV licence, parking tickets). And whilst the information provided won't be as comprehensive as a book of evidence it ensures that there is a disclosure of all relevant material to the defendant.

The position regarding choosing a summary trial or indictment is a liitle bit complex. Firstly, Article 38 of the Constitution is applicable as is the relevant statute creating the offence. Most modern offences created by statute create what are known as 'hybrid or either-way offences '. The common misconception is that it is defendant who elects for summary or indictment trial. This is not the case in fact the defendant has no say whatsoever. As it is the prosecutor(DPP) who elects for either summary or indicment. If he chooses indictment then that is the end of the matter, but, if he chooses summary then the District Judge must also satify himself in accordance with Art. 38 that the alleged offence is minor and suitable for summary disposal.

Having said that, some 'Scheduled Offences' i.e. listed in the first schedule as amended of the Criminal Justice Act 1951, permit the defendant to choose a summary trial if three conditions are met, viz. a) the court is satisfied that the facts proved or alleged constitute a minor offence, and b) the accused does not object, after being informed of his or her right to a trial by jury, and c) the DPP consents. Such offences have diminished considerably since 1951 and really only now cover theft type offences, as stated above the majority of newer offences create hybrid offences where a defendant has no say in venue/mode of trial at all.

Our man in Havana

I remember a case from a DC in Wexford where a defendant was charged with possession of 50 E tablets. He was given the option of a jury trial which he declined.

I would think that such a case would be not minor and be the jurisdiction of the circuit court?

445279.ie

With all larceny cases the defendant must be "put on their election" i.e the judge asks them if that want to go forward for trial in the circuit court or have their case dealt with in the district court. They usually only go forward for trial in the circuit if they're pleading not guilty.

Doesn't matter how small the larceny. I know of a case where a guy went forward for trial in the circuit court for stealing a 15c plastic bag in Tesco :eek:. Imagine the cost to the state!!

Our man in Havana

The DPP must have been bonkers to proceed with that considering all the stuff they don't bother it.

445279.ie

I know, crazy stuff but there must have been some history to the case that never came before the court cos I think the state dropped the charges at the end.

dats_right

DCC160 wrote: »

With all larceny cases the defendant must be "put on their election"

No, this isn't the case. As stated in my earlier post re theft offences which as I stated are Scheduled Offences per the 1951 Act and as such are the few remaining offences where a defendant has a right of election; a defendants is only put on election, if the judge deems the offence to be minor enough in nature as to permit the matter be dealt with summarily, in accordance with their Constitutional obligations per art 38. If the judge is not so satisfied then he must refuse jurisdiction and direct trial by indictment regardless of the views of the defendant.

In most cases now(theft being the most notable exception) the offence will constitute a hybrid or each-way offence, meaning that whether the defendant is tried summarily or on indictment is in the first instance a choice to be made by the prosecutor and if necessary the trial judge. Importantly, the defendant has no say whatsoever whether they are tried summarily or on indictment for such offences.

Larceny is also no longer an offence known to the statute books as it has been replaced with the offence of theft pursuant to section 4 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) 2001.

johnnyskeleton

Four other, very practical differences are:

1) for a summary offence there is a right to a complete rehearing on appeal, whereas for indictable offences the only appeals are on a point of law or against severity of sentence.

2) for someone on legal aid they will invariably be represented by a solicitor and counsel, whereas for summary offences it would usually be a solicitor on their own or else (in some areas) a junior barrister filling in for the solicitor.

3) Summary offences are usually prosecuted by the gardai or some other body and rarely by lawyers; indictable offences are always prosecuted by lawyers

4) the presumption of innocence is more likely to be more than just lipservice in a trial on indictment.