Summary jurisdiction, in the widest sense of the phrase, in English law includes the power asserted by courts of record to deal brevi manu (directly) with contempts of court without the intervention of a jury. Probably the power was originally exercisable only when the fact was notorious, i.e. done in presence of the court. But it has long been exercised as to contempts outside of a court.
The term is also applied to the special powers given by statute or rules to the High Court of Justice and to county courts for dealing with certain classes of causes or matters by methods more simple and expeditious than the ordinary procedure of an action. But the phrase in modern times is applied almost exclusively to forms of jurisdiction exercised by justices of the peace out of general or quarter sessions, and without the assistance of a jury.
Overview Ever since the creation of the office of justice of the peace the tendency of English legislation has been to enable them to deal with minor offences without a jury. Legislation was necessary because, as Blackstone says, except in the case of contempts the common law is a stranger to trial without a jury, and because even when an offence is created by statute the procedure for trying must be by indictment and trial before a jury, unless by the statute creating the offence or some other statute another mode of trial is provided. In one remarkable instance power is given by section 4 of the Frivolous Arrests Act 1725 (12 Geo. 1. c. 29; repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 1948) to judges of the superior courts summarily to sentence to transportation (penal servitude) a solicitor practising after conviction of barratry, forgery or perjury (Stephen, A Digest of the Criminal Law, 6th ed., 113).
In other words all the summary jurisdiction of justices of the peace is the creation of statute. The history of the gradual development of the summary jurisdiction of justices of the peace is stated in Stephen's A History of the Criminal Law of England, vol. i. ch. 4. The result of legislation is that summary jurisdiction has been conferred by statutes and by-laws as to innumerable petty offences of a criminal or quasi-criminal character (most of which in French law would be described as contraventions), ranging through every letter of the alphabet. The most important perhaps are those under the Army, Game, Highway, Licensing, Merchant Shipping, Post Office, Public Health, Revenue and Vagrancy Acts.
A court of summary jurisdiction was defined in the Interpretation Act 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 63) as "any justice or justices of the peace or other magistrate, by whatever name called, to whom jurisdiction is given by, or who is authorized to act under, the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, whether in England, Wales or Ireland, and whether acting under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts or any of them or any other act or by virtue of his commission or under the common law" (Interpretation Act 1889, s. 13 ). This definition did not apply to justices of the peace sitting to hold a preliminary inquiry as to indictable offences, or in the discharge of their quasi-administrative functions as licensing authority. The 1889 Act was replaced by the Interpretation Act 1978, which defines a summary offence as one triable only summarily. The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 is the modern law giving magistrates' courts in England and Wales the jurisdiction to try offences summarily, including offences triable either way.
The expression "Summary Jurisdiction Acts" means, as to England and Wales, the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1848 (11 & 12 Vict. c. 42) and Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879 (42 & 43 Vict. c. 49) and any act amending these acts or either of them. These acts define the procedure to be followed by justices in those cases in which they are empowered by statute to hear and determine civil or criminal cases without the intervention of a jury or the forms of an action or indictment at law or a suit in equity. Besides these two acts the procedure as to the exercise of summary jurisdiction is also regulated by the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1857 (20 & 21 Vict. c. 43), the Summary Jurisdiction (Process) Act 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 24), the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1884 (47 & 48 Vict. c. 43), and the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1899 (62 & 63 Vict. c. 22).
The Summary Jurisdiction Act 1848 repealed and consolidated the provisions of a large number of earlier acts. The Summary Jurisdiction Act 1857 provided a mode of appeal to the High Court by case stated as to questions of law raised in summary proceedings. The Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879 amended the procedure in many details with the view of uniformity, and enlarged the powers of justices to deal summarily with certain classes of offences ordinarily punishable on indictment. The act gives power to make rules regulating details of procedure.
The rules in force in 1911 were made in 1886, but have since been amended in certain details. The Summary Jurisdiction Act 1884 swept away special forms of procedure contained in a large number of statutes, and substituted the procedure of the Summary Jurisdiction Acts. The Summary Jurisdiction Act 1899 added the obtaining of property by false pretences to the list of indictable offences that could sub modo be summarily dealt with. The statutes above mentioned form a kind of code as to procedure and to some extent also as to jurisdiction.
Statutory authority
As already stated, to enable a justice to deal summarily with an offence, whether created by statute or by-law, some statutory authority must be shown. A very large number of petty offences (contraventions) have been created (e.g. poaching, minor forms of theft, malicious damage and assault), and are annually being created by legislation, or by the by-laws of corporations made under statutory authority, or by departments of state acting under such authority. The two latter classes differ from the first in the necessity of proving by evidence the existence of the by-law or statutory rule, and if need be that it is intra vires.
In the case of offences primarily punishable only on summary conviction, the accused, if the maximum punishment is imprisonment for over three months, can choose a jury trial (Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879, s. 17).
In the case of offences primarily punishable only on indictment, power to convict summarily is given in the following cases: All indictable offences (except homicide) committed by children over seven and under twelve, if the court thinks it expedient and the parent or guardian does not object (1879, s. 10). All indictable offences (except homicide) committed by young persons of twelve and under sixteen, if the young person consents after being told of his right to be tried by a jury (1879, S. 11; 1899, s. 2). The indictable offences specified in sched. 1, col. 2 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879 and in thSummary Jurisdiction Act 1899, if committed by adults, if they consent to summary trial after being told of their right to be tried by a jury (1879, s. 12). The indictable offences specified in sched. 1, col. I. of the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879 and theSummary Jurisdiction Act 1899, if committed by an adult who pleads guilty after due caution that if he does so, he is summarily convicted (1879, s. 13).
Adults cannot be summarily dealt with under 3 or 4 if the offence is punishable by law with penal servitude owing to previous conviction or indictment of the accused (1879, s. 14).
With all indictable offences under heads 1 to 4, summary jurisdiction depends on consent of the accused or a person with authority over him after receiving due information as to the right to go to a jury, and the punishments on summary conviction in such cases are not those that could be imposed after conviction or indictment, but were limited as follows: Imprisonment for not more than one month or fine not exceeding 40s. and (or) whipping of male children (not more than six strokes with a birch) ; sending to an industrial school or reformatory. Imprisonment with or without hard labour for not more than three months or fine not exceeding £10 and (or) whipping of males (not more than twelve strokes with a birch) ; sending to an industrial school or reformatory. Imprisonment for not more than three months with or without hard labour or fine not exceeding £20. Imprisonment with or without hard labour for not over six months. These limitations of punishment have had a potent effect in inducing culprits to avoid the greater risks involved in a jury trial.
Where the offence is indictable the accused is brought before the justices either on arrest without warrant or on warrant or summons under the Indictable Offences Act 1848. and the summary jurisdiction procedure does not apply till the necessary option has been taken.
Where the offence is indictable only at the election of the accused the summary jurisdiction procedure applies until on being informed of his option the accused elects for jury trial (Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879, s. 17).
Procedure
In the case of an offence punishable on summary conviction the procedure is ordinarily as follows:
Information, usually oral, is laid before one or more justices of the peace alleging the commission of the offence. An information must not state more than a single offence, but great latitude is given as to amending at the hearing any defects in the mode of stating an offence. Upon receipt of the information the justice may issue his summons for the attendance of the accused at a time and place named to answer the charge. It is usual to summon to a petty sessional court (i.e. two justices or a stipendiary magistrate, or, in the City of London, an alderman). The summons is usually served by a constable. If the accused does not attend in obedience to the summons, after proof of service the court may either issue a warrant for his arrest or may deal with the charge in his absence.
Occasionally a warrant is issued in place of a summons in the first instance, in which case the information must be laid in writing and be verified by oath. The proceedings must be begun, i.e. by laying the information, not later than six months after the commission of the offence, unless by some particular statute another period is named or unless the offence is what is called a continuing offence.
In a certain number of summary cases the accused is arrested under statutory authority without application to a justice, e.g. in the case of rogues and vagabonds and certain classes of offences committed in the street in view of a constable or by night. Whether the accused is brought before the court on arrest with or without warrant or attends in obedience to summons, the procedure at the hearing is the same. The hearing is ordinarily before a petty sessional court, i.e. before two or more justices sitting at their regular place of meeting or some place temporarily appointed as the substitute for the regular court-house, or before a stipendiary magistrate, or in the city of London an alderman, sitting at a place where he may by law do alone what in other places may be done by two justices. A single justice sitting alone in the ordinary court-house or two or more justices sitting together at an occasional court-house have certain jurisdiction to hear and determine the case, but cannot order a fine of more than 20s. or imprisonment for more than fourteen days.