Talk:Summary offence

Spelling

The title of this page is spelled wrong. It should be 'offense' not 'offence'. JShust (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This raises an interesting point, as to how international words should be handled (i.e., centre vs. center, for instance). In this case, it's my understanding that 'offence' is the correct spelling through much of the world outside the United States. 'Offense' is the correct American spelling. Witzlaw (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Canada

It is correct that an arrest warrant is needed for neither summary nor indictable offenses?--Zfish118 (talk) 01:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This is kind of a subject for another article, but the powers of arrest for police in Canada can be found in section 495 of the Criminal Code, if I recall the number. It says that a police officer doesn't need a warrant for many forms of arrests. In fact, arrests with a warrant are far less common than arrests without a warrant. A warrant isn't needed if the police officer finds a person in the act of committing the crime, whether it is summary or indictable. Also, a warrant isn't necessary if the police officer has "reasonable grounds to believe" that an indictable offence has been committed. And finally, a warrant is not necessary if the police officer has reason to believe there is a warrant out in effect, but he/she doesn't have it with him/her.

-- Michael Tillmann mtillmann79@gmail.com 29 March 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.247.253.44 (talk) 04:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

History of summary offences

The article makes it clear that, in England and Wales at least, summary trials are not part of the common law but are an invention of statute law. This begs the question: when was the procedure first used, and when was the class of summary offences created by abolishing the right to jury trial in respect of them? Hairy Dude (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Criminal citation into Summary offence#United States

This article is a stub, and the concepts are substantially similar so that they may not warrant separate pages. Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 12:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

This edit

Hey BushelCandle, I read this edit summary back and realized it was a bit more brusque than I meant--but yes, User:Libracarol added that content and they've since been banned for their tendency to add inaccurate OR about the Immigration and Nationality Act to law-related articles. I'm in the process of going through every article LC made substantial edits to and removing the content if I can't verify it. If you're familiar enough with the INA and petty offenses you're welcome to add the material back, but I just wanted to give you that context. Alyo (chat·edits) 04:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to explain your (justified) excision of (ostensibly sourced and) plausible text, Alyo.

I apologise unreservedly for not taking sufficient time and care studying the text of the US legislation and cited case analysis to realise it in no way supported the excised plausible text before reverting your excision.

One wee point I would make, though:
it would have been better not to have marked your reversion of my revert as "m"inor, since that may have meant that more knowledgeable editors than myself might then have that important edit hidden from their watchlists if they have configured them not to show "m"inor edits.

Thanks also for taking the trouble to repair User:Libracarol's unsourced (and mendacious?) edits. BushelCandle 13:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks again! Alyo (chat·edits) 17:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)