This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Summary offence article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The title of this page is spelled wrong. It should be 'offense' not 'offence'. JShust ( talk) 14:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Summary offence article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The title of this page is spelled wrong. It should be 'offense' not 'offence'. JShust ( talk) 14:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)