Adding charges to summons

pillphil

Can new charges be added to a summons at any time?

For example, if I was caught with cannabis, got a summons for possession, showed up in court, had the case adjourned, could the charge then be changed to intent to sell or supply or any other cannabis related charge.

Kosseegan

pillphil wrote: »

Can new charges be added to a summons at any time?

For example, if I was caught with cannabis, got a summons for possession, showed up in court, had the case adjourned, could the charge then be changed to intent to sell or supply or any other cannabis related charge.

Yes.

pillphil

cheers

pillphil

Would I be informed of any such changes? If not how would I find out if any change had been made?


Or can I find this information on-line anywhere? All I can find is about the initial summons being issued. I'm not even sure if I'm using the right terminology. Any correction would be appreciated.

Reloc8

Kosseegan wrote: »

Yes.

That's not correct.

A summons is a document used to prosecute an offence. The offence prosecuted may be summary or indictable. The former is prosecutable in the District Court only, the latter may be dealt with in the District Court in certain circumstances, or before the Circuit or Central Criminal Court.

footnote : forget about the Special Criminal Court for the moment.

Anyway, if a matter is sent forward to the Circuit or Central Criminal Court an indictment will be provided by the prosecution setting out the charges as 'counts'. Those counts can be made up of any indictable charge supported by the statements in the Book of Evidence (served on the defendant before being sent forward).

In other words it doesn't matter if you were not originally summonsed or charged with a particular indictable offence, you can be 'charged' with it by it being included in your indictment once you are sent forward if you are sent forward.

However

A summary charge cannot be added to an indictment unless it has charged by way of summons or charge sheet prior to the defendant being sent forward (and assuming the charge was brought or summons applied for before the expiry of six months from the date of the alleged offence).

Moreover

A summons per se cannot 'have charges added to it'.

However

There is no time limit for the commencement of indictable offences, even if they are subsequently to be dealt with summarily. So you could be summonsed for offence A, and then receive further summons' for indictable offences but not summary offences, unless the latter were applied for within six months of the date of the alleged offence.

In answer to your question, which has been incorrectly answered by the other poster in this thread, a further charge cannot be added to your summons. However, you could be summonsed for more offences if they are indictable. The charge cannot in other words be changed as such, but another summons could issue.

You would find out by way of having the summons served on you, much as the original summons was.

J K

Don't think you'd be summonsed for possession if the prospect of a supply charge was being looked at. If you mean for a seperate offence you could be charged outside the court room. Handed a copy of your new 'supply' charge sheet. Then evidence of charging you given and the summons offence withdrawn.

Milk & Honey

Reloc8 wrote: »

That's not correct.

A summons is a document used to prosecute an offence. The offence prosecuted may be summary or indictable. The former is prosecutable in the District Court only, the latter may be dealt with in the District Court in certain circumstances, or before the Circuit or Central Criminal Court.

footnote : forget about the Special Criminal Court for the moment.

Anyway, if a matter is sent forward to the Circuit or Central Criminal Court an indictment will be provided by the prosecution setting out the charges as 'counts'. Those counts can be made up of any indictable charge supported by the statements in the Book of Evidence (served on the defendant before being sent forward).

In other words it doesn't matter if you were not originally summonsed or charged with a particular indictable offence, you can be 'charged' with it by it being included in your indictment once you are sent forward if you are sent forward.

However

A summary charge cannot be added to an indictment unless it has charged by way of summons or charge sheet prior to the defendant being sent forward (and assuming the charge was brought or summons applied for before the expiry of six months from the date of the alleged offence).

Moreover

A summons per se cannot 'have charges added to it'.

However

There is no time limit for the commencement of indictable offences, even if they are subsequently to be dealt with summarily. So you could be summonsed for offence A, and then receive further summons' for indictable offences but not summary offences, unless the latter were applied for within six months of the date of the alleged offence.

In answer to your question, which has been incorrectly answered by the other poster in this thread, a further charge cannot be added to your summons. However, you could be summonsed for more offences if they are indictable. The charge cannot in other words be changed as such, but another summons could issue.

You would find out by way of having the summons served on you, much as the original summons was.

That is not correct. A summons is a document used to secure the attendance of a person in court, so that they can be charged with an offence. Once in Court additional charges may be preferred, or charges substituted for the original. After being sent forward on indictment a person is in court on the return for trial not a summons.

Reloc8

No, you're wrong. What I said was correct.

Milk & Honey

[1983] I.L.R.M. 76
Director of Public Prosecutions v Stuart Clein

A summons, after all, is only a written command issued to a defendant for the purpose of getting him to attend court on a specified date to answer a specified complaint. If he responds to that command by appearing in court on the specified date and by answering the summons when it is called in court, he cannot be heard to say that he was not properly summoned if the complaint set out in the summons is a valid one. The authorities referred to in the judgment of Gannon J amply support his conclusion ([1981] ILRM 465 ), 468) that

When a defendant, as in this case, to whom a summons has been addressed and issued for service, attends in court with solicitor and counsel representing him and submits to the jurisdiction of the court and to the hearing by the court of the charges laid and the evidence thereon, the summons to which he responded ceases to have any significance.

poisonated

Milk & Honey wrote: »

[1983] I.L.R.M. 76
Director of Public Prosecutions v Stuart Clein

A summons, after all, is only a written command issued to a defendant for the purpose of getting him to attend court on a specified date to answer a specified complaint. If he responds to that command by appearing in court on the specified date and by answering the summons when it is called in court, he cannot be heard to say that he was not properly summoned if the complaint set out in the summons is a valid one. The authorities referred to in the judgment of Gannon J amply support his conclusion ([1981] ILRM 465 ), 468) that

When a defendant, as in this case, to whom a summons has been addressed and issued for service, attends in court with solicitor and counsel representing him and submits to the jurisdiction of the court and to the hearing by the court of the charges laid and the evidence thereon, the summons to which he responded ceases to have any significance.

The op must be getting confused now.

NoQuarter

Reloc8 wrote: »

A summary charge cannot be added to an indictment unless it has charged by way of summons or charge sheet prior to the defendant being sent forward (and assuming the charge was brought or summons applied for before the expiry of six months from the date of the alleged offence).

So the answer, as Kosseegan said, is yes.

OP has been summoned and has had the case adjourned in the DC so it hasnt been sent forward yet. Simple.

MagicSean

One of two things can happen. You can be charged before the court or you can be arrested and charged at a station and brought back to court. Either way you will be charged.

pillphil

Milk & Honey wrote: »

That is not correct. A summons is a document used to secure the attendance of a person in court, so that they can be charged with an offence. Once in Court additional charges may be preferred, or charges substituted for the original. After being sent forward on indictment a person is in court on the return for trial not a summons.

Milk & Honey wrote: »

[1983] I.L.R.M. 76
Director of Public Prosecutions v Stuart Clein

A summons, after all, is only a written command issued to a defendant for the purpose of getting him to attend court on a specified date to answer a specified complaint. If he responds to that command by appearing in court on the specified date and by answering the summons when it is called in court, he cannot be heard to say that he was not properly summoned if the complaint set out in the summons is a valid one. The authorities referred to in the judgment of Gannon J amply support his conclusion ([1981] ILRM 465 ), 468) that

When a defendant, as in this case, to whom a summons has been addressed and issued for service, attends in court with solicitor and counsel representing him and submits to the jurisdiction of the court and to the hearing by the court of the charges laid and the evidence thereon, the summons to which he responded ceases to have any significance.

NoQuarter wrote: »

So the answer, as Kosseegan said, is yes.

OP has been summoned and has had the case adjourned in the DC so it hasnt been sent forward yet. Simple.

MagicSean wrote: »

One of two things can happen. You can be charged before the court or you can be arrested and charged at a station and brought back to court. Either way you will be charged.

If I didn't know what the charges were before the court case, how would I prepare a defense?

MagicSean

pillphil wrote: »

If I didn't know what the charges were before the court case, how would I prepare a defense?

Seek an adjournment

pillphil

Only for the charges to be changed again?

MagicSean

pillphil wrote: »

Only for the charges to be changed again?

Changed to what? I presume that with a pending charge for drug dealing you have obtained a solicitor so it would be up to him to raise any issue in relation to changing charges or delaying proceedings.

pillphil

I'm not talking about a pending dealing charge though, I'm asking if the DPP decide to add a sale and supply charge to a possession charge (for the same incident) between the initial court date and the subsequent court date, when would I be informed?
What your saying is I'd have to waste another day in court just to find out they were adding a charge. And then come back on a third date to contest it.
By which time they might decide to go for cultivation, possession and sale and supply,which would require a further adjournment, and a fourth court date. By which...
(Actually, it'd be more likely possession-> cultivation ->Sale supply)
Is there not some means of informing the defendant of any additional added charges like the summons which informs him of the initial charges.

Even if only one charge is added that means two extra court dates, two extra days off work, two extra days paying a solicitor.

schemingbohemia

If you plead guilty to possession you'll avoid all of these permutations!

pillphil

That would have been my preference as well.

MagicSean

pillphil wrote: »

I'm not talking about a pending dealing charge though, I'm asking if the DPP decide to add a sale and supply charge to a possession charge (for the same incident) between the initial court date and the subsequent court date, when would I be informed?
What your saying is I'd have to waste another day in court just to find out they were adding a charge. And then come back on a third date to contest it.
By which time they might decide to go for cultivation, possession and sale and supply,which would require a further adjournment, and a fourth court date. By which...
(Actually, it'd be more likely possession-> cultivation ->Sale supply)
Is there not some means of informing the defendant of any additional added charges like the summons which informs him of the initial charges.

Even if only one charge is added that means two extra court dates, two extra days off work, two extra days paying a solicitor.

Perhaps you could do with a lesson on the process of prosecution. A charge of simple posession can be brought by a Garda and must be brought within six months of the offence. A charge for posession with intent or cultivation requires a direction from the dpp which can take longer than six months. If the garda hasn't received a direction by six months he will issue proceedings for the minor offence. If he subsequently obtains a direction to prosecute for the more serious stuff he will follow up with those. So there are very few occasions on which a third set of charges would be brought in relation to the same crime.

Reloc8

Milk & Honey wrote: »

[1983] I.L.R.M. 76
Director of Public Prosecutions v Stuart Clein

A summons, after all, is only a written command issued to a defendant for the purpose of getting him to attend court on a specified date to answer a specified complaint. If he responds to that command by appearing in court on the specified date and by answering the summons when it is called in court, he cannot be heard to say that he was not properly summoned if the complaint set out in the summons is a valid one. The authorities referred to in the judgment of Gannon J amply support his conclusion ([1981] ILRM 465 ), 468) that

When a defendant, as in this case, to whom a summons has been addressed and issued for service, attends in court with solicitor and counsel representing him and submits to the jurisdiction of the court and to the hearing by the court of the charges laid and the evidence thereon, the summons to which he responded ceases to have any significance.

That case deals simply with the requirement to attend on foot of being served with a summons. It is not authority for the proposition that you can add charges to a summons when issued, which you can't do.

NoQuarter wrote: »

So the answer, as Kosseegan said, is yes.

OP has been summoned and has had the case adjourned in the DC so it hasnt been sent forward yet. Simple.

No. As I said, charges can be added to an indictment when a person has been sent forward. Not all cases are sent forward. There may not be a 'yet' in that the case may stay in the District Court. You appear to be presuming it will be sent forward to the Circuit Court.

The question asked was whether charges can be added to a summons. They can't.

Honestly, I'm not making this stuff up for fun.

MagicSean wrote: »

A charge of simple posession can be brought by a Garda and must be brought within six months of the offence. .

Just in the interests of accuracy and completeness, simple possession (s. 3 Misuse of Drugs Act) is indictable unless it relates to cannabis only below a certain value, which would be a summary only offence.

pillphil

Reloc8 wrote: »

Just in the interests of accuracy and completeness, simple possession (s. 3 Misuse of Drugs Act) is indictable unless it relates to cannabis only below a certain value, which would be a summary only offence.

So am I right in thinking cultivation and possession with intent are both indictable and not subject to the 6 month application limit?

And if they decide to go ahead with either, they would issue another summons?

pillphil

MagicSean wrote: »

Perhaps you could do with a lesson on the process of prosecution. A charge of simple posession can be brought by a Garda and must be brought within six months of the offence. A charge for posession with intent or cultivation requires a direction from the dpp which can take longer than six months. If the garda hasn't received a direction by six months he will issue proceedings for the minor offence. If he subsequently obtains a direction to prosecute for the more serious stuff he will follow up with those. So there are very few occasions on which a third set of charges would be brought in relation to the same crime.

Ok, so would I be receive a summons or some other indication of the new charges before the next court date?

Milk & Honey

Reloc8 wrote: »

That case deals simply with the requirement to attend on foot of being served with a summons. It is not authority for the proposition that you can add charges to a summons when issued, which you can't do.

That case is authority for the proposition that a summons is meaningless once a person turns up in court. After that additional charges can be preferred. Once the person answered to the charge in the district court they are charged with the offence set out in the summons, after that the summons ceases to have any legal effect. It is not evidence of anything contained in it. Additional charges can be preferred. That is in essence what the o/p was asking. I am sure he is not concerned with the mechanics of how it is done.

As to the entirely artificial point as to whether there can be an amendment to the summons to put an additional charge

Order 15(4) of the District Court Rules states that
"Two or more complaints or offences may be alleged in the one summons."

The District Court has power to amend the summons on application of the prosecutor. There is no bar to adding an additional charge to a summons. in reality it is most unlikely to be done. It is usually convenient to prefer an additional charge by way of charge sheet on the attendance of the accused in court.

Stephen MacAvin v The Director of Public Prosecutions
[2002 No. 02278 S.S.]

"I am satisfied that the section provides for distinct offences in regard to the failure to comply with the requirement of a member of An Garda Síochána on the one hand, which relates to the requirement to provide a specimen or blood (or urine) as the case may be, and the failure to comply with the requirement of a designated doctor “in relation to the taking of a specimen” on the other hand. While these offences are created by the same section, I am satisfied that they are distinct offences. In this regard, I am satisfied that the power of amendment was exercised in the instant case to convert an accusation f the commission of one offence to an accusation of the commission of a separate offence. Had this taken place within the period of six months from the date of the alleged offence, I am satisfied that it could have been done in the preferring of a separate charge against the accused ore tenus."

See also.
1949] 83 I.L.T.R 161
The State (Superintendent O'Brien) v District Justice Coyne
"I do not think there is any substance in the point that the addition of a new charge may not properly be referred to as an amendment; and, as the order shows on its face what appears to be a complete and good adjudication, by way of dismissing the original charge and convicting on the added charge, I think, for the reasons stated, that no grounds have been shown for quashing the order or for compelling the District Justice to hear and determine a matter on which his order shows he has already adjudicated."

NoQuarter

pillphil wrote: »

So am I right in thinking cultivation and possession with intent are both indictable and not subject to the 6 month application limit?

And if they decide to go ahead with either, they would issue another summons?

Both those offences provide for summary and indictable penalties.

Have a look at the "Misuse of Drugs Act, 1977".

Sections 3, 15, 17 and 27.

NoQuarter

Reloc8 wrote: »

The question asked was whether charges can be added to a summons. They can't.

I think you know exactly what the OP meant and are being unduly pedantic so I bow out at this stage.

Milk & Honey

NoQuarter wrote: »

I think you know exactly what the OP meant and are being unduly pedantic so I bow out at this stage.

What is even worse is that he'e wrong. If he's not making it up I wonder what law books he is using?

pillphil

NoQuarter wrote: »

Both those offences provide for summary and indictable penalties.

Have a look at the "Misuse of Drugs Act, 1977".

Sections 3, 15, 17 and 27.

In other words, yes?

NoQuarter wrote: »

I think you know exactly what the OP meant and are being unduly pedantic so I bow out at this stage.

Milk & Honey wrote: »

What is even worse is that he'e wrong. If he's not making it up I wonder what law books he is using?

Is he right about this bit? Or will I have to waste another day in court if they decide to add more charges?

Reloc8 wrote: »

The charge cannot in other words be changed as such, but another summons could issue.

You would find out by way of having the summons served on you, much as the original summons was.

Milk & Honey

pillphil wrote: »

In other words, yes?





Is he right about this bit? Or will I have to waste another day in court if they decide to add more charges?

More charges can be brought. If so, it is most likely there will be an adjournment so as to avoid taking you short. It is not unusual for a defendant to appear three or four times on a summons, on different days, before it is finally disposed of.

0O7

Reloc8 wrote: »

That's not correct.

A summons is a document used to prosecute an offence. The offence prosecuted may be summary or indictable. The former is prosecutable in the District Court only, the latter may be dealt with in the District Court in certain circumstances, or before the Circuit or Central Criminal Court.

footnote : forget about the Special Criminal Court for the moment.

Anyway, if a matter is sent forward to the Circuit or Central Criminal Court an indictment will be provided by the prosecution setting out the charges as 'counts'. Those counts can be made up of any indictable charge supported by the statements in the Book of Evidence (served on the defendant before being sent forward).

In other words it doesn't matter if you were not originally summonsed or charged with a particular indictable offence, you can be 'charged' with it by it being included in your indictment once you are sent forward if you are sent forward.

However

A summary charge cannot be added to an indictment unless it has charged by way of summons or charge sheet prior to the defendant being sent forward (and assuming the charge was brought or summons applied for before the expiry of six months from the date of the alleged offence).

Moreover

A summons per se cannot 'have charges added to it'.

However

There is no time limit for the commencement of indictable offences, even if they are subsequently to be dealt with summarily. So you could be summonsed for offence A, and then receive further summons' for indictable offences but not summary offences, unless the latter were applied for within six months of the date of the alleged offence.

In answer to your question, which has been incorrectly answered by the other poster in this thread, a further charge cannot be added to your summons. However, you could be summonsed for more offences if they are indictable. The charge cannot in other words be changed as such, but another summons could issue.

You would find out by way of having the summons served on you, much as the original summons was.

sorry but your wrong, the 1st one can be witdrawn and a more severe charge can be put forward.... (sec15mda7785 is indictable) provided that the 1st summons(sec3mda7785) has not reached court yet....