Summary trial or Indictment

selfrep

Does the accused in the District Court ever have a say as to whether their trial is summary offence or whether it can go for indictable offence in circuit court on front of judge and jury? I realise the differance and I know it is up to DPP/Gardai and Judge but can the accused specifically ask for a judge and jury if the charges are indictable? If it is decided by DPp/Gardai and Judge to have it tried on summary offence can the accused request it go for trial with judge and jury?

CIARAN_BOYLE

selfrep wrote: »

Does the accused in the District Court ever have a say as to whether their trial is summary offence or whether it can go for indictable offence in circuit court on front of judge and jury? I realise the differance and I know it is up to DPP/Gardai and Judge but can the accused specifically ask for a judge and jury if the charges are indictable? If it is decided by DPp/Gardai and Judge to have it tried on summary offence can the accused request it go for trial with judge and jury?

I think they can appeal to the Circut court where its done as a full trial with a Circut court judge and a jury

johnnyskeleton

One can always ask the judge and a limited number of offences have a right to elect between summary trial and trial on indictment. A judge should always put this to the accused if the right is there.

It's a difficult decision and one that really requires expert advice before deciding. If it is an indictable offence legal aid is usually available for those who can't afford a solicitor. It is always worth even a quick consultation with a solicitor in court about the various options.

Appeal from district to circuit does not give a trial by jury on appeal, it is another summary hearing but in the circuit court.

coylemj

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Appeal from district to circuit does not give a trial by jury on appeal, it is another summary hearing but in the circuit court.

+1 An appeal to the Circuit Court from the District Court consists of a rehearing of the case in front of the CC judge, no jury.

coylemj

selfrep wrote: »

Does the accused in the District Court ever have a say as to whether their trial is summary offence or whether it can go for indictable offence in circuit court on front of judge and jury?

If it's an indictable offence the accused will always be offered trial by jury, unless the judge refuses jurisdiction (because he/she decides the charges are too serious) or the DPP insists on it going to the Circuit Court or Special Criminal Court in which case the accuses will have no say in the matter.

A case where the DPP might decide to send it up to the CC would be where a repeat offender is caught for burglary or assault and the DPP and Gardai want him exposed to the more severe penalties that the judge in the CC can hand down - up to life imprisonment depending on the crime.

selfrep wrote: »

If it is decided by DPp/Gardai and Judge to have it tried on summary offence can the accused request it go for trial with judge and jury?

Yes, but only if it is an indictable offence.

johnnyskeleton

coylemj wrote: »

selfrep wrote: »

Does the accused in the District Court ever have a say as to whether their trial is summary offence or whether it can go for indictable offence in circuit court on front of judge and jury?

If it's an indictable offence the accused will always be offered trial by jury, unless the judge refuses jurisdiction (because he/she decides the charges are too serious) or the DPP insists on it going to the Circuit Court or Special Criminal Court in which case the accuses will have no say in the matter.

A case where the DPP might decide to send it up to the CC would be where a repeat offender is caught for burglary or assault and the DPP and Gardai want him exposed to the more severe penalties that the judge in the CC can hand down - up to life imprisonment depending on the crime.

selfrep wrote: »

If it is decided by DPp/Gardai and Judge to have it tried on summary offence can the accused request it go for trial with judge and jury?

Yes, but only if it is an indictable offence.

not all indictable offences have a right to trial by jury. It depends onthese specific offence. So there is a right of election for theft, but not criminal damage.

Also, in theory the only reason the dpp should opt for summary trial instead of trial on indictment is that it is a minor offence rather than a non minor offence. In theory, it shouldn't matter to the dpp what penalty he wants, or the number of previous convictions and he should confine himself to a simple assessment of whether it is minor and fit for summary trial or else non minor.

coylemj

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

not all indictable offences have a right to trial by jury. It depends onthese specific offence. So there is a right of election for theft, but not criminal damage.

By definition if it's indictable the accused has a right to trial by jury.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Also, in theory the only reason the dpp should opt for summary trial instead of trial on indictment is that it is a minor offence rather than a non minor offence.

The DPP never 'opts' for summary trial in the case of bread and butter crimes like assault and burglary, that is a decision for the District Court after the accused waives his right to a trial by jury. By default the DPP doesn't get involved unless he wants to kick it up to the Circuit or Special Criminal Court.

What I mean is that if (1) the judge decides the facts as alleged constitute a minor offence and (2) the accused having been informed of his right to a trial by jury does not object to a summary trial, then the case will go ahead in the District Court with no reference to the DPP unless it is a scheduled offence under the Offences Against the State Acts.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

In theory, it shouldn't matter to the dpp what penalty he wants, or the number of previous convictions and he should confine himself to a simple assessment of whether it is minor and fit for summary trial or else non minor.

That's not how it works. The decision as to whether the facts as alleged constitute a minor offence or not is for the District Court, not the DPP.

However if the Gardai tell the DPP that the accused is continuously getting away with pleading guilty in the District Court and getting short sentences, they can ask for a writ of indictment to force the District Justice to send it up to the Circuit Court so that the guy can get a stiff sentence which based on his previous record he probably deserves.

selfrep

So let me clarify this, if the charges are indictable but the judge decides it can be tried on summary charges in district court the judge has to offer the accused the chance of trial by jury and the accused must refuse same in order for it to be tried summarily?... so if the charges are indeed indictable and merit a circuit court hearing but the judge in district court can opt to hear it summarily but he must offer the accused the chance to trial by jury and accused must refuse it? am I right?

Reloc8

coylemj wrote: »

By definition if it's indictable the accused has a right to trial by jury.

No that's completely wrong.

Indictable offences can be :-

1. Indictable only e.g. s. 4 assault causing serious harm NFOAPA 1997.

2. Indictable with right of election on the part of the accused - e.g. all offences contrary to Theft & Fraud Act 2001, where the accused can choose a jury trial irrespective of what the DPP or District Judge thinks.

3. Indictable with no right of election e.g. S. 3 Assault causing harm NFOAPA 1997, where irrespective of what the accused wishes, the trial will be summary if the DPP directs summary disposal and the District Judge accepts jurisdiction.

coylemj wrote: »

The DPP never 'opts' for summary trial in the case of bread and butter crimes like assault and burglary, that is a decision for the District Court after the accused waives his right to a trial by jury. By default the DPP doesn't get involved unless he wants to kick it up to the Circuit or Special Criminal Court.

No that's completely wrong.

Burglary is one of the offences most commonly directed for trial on indictment by the DPP. Funnily enough its regarded as pretty serious.

As regards assaults, s. 2 assault is summary only and can never be tried on indictment in isolation. The DPP would never give directions as to mode of trial. S. 4 assault is indictable only and can never be dealt with in the District Court hence no directions are given by the DPP. You are therefore suggesting that the DPP never directs trial on indictment in a s. 3 Assault Causing Harm, which is in fact frequently dealt with on indictment on the directions of the DPP.

As regards the DPP 'opting' for summary trial, that is exactly what the DPP does, by indicating his or her consent to summary disposal. The District Court Judge must then accept jurisdiction for the case to remain summary (yes by considering whether it is a minor offence fit to be tried summarily) and if the accused has a right of election, he or she must also consent to summary disposal.

coylemj wrote: »

What I mean is that if (1) the judge decides the facts as alleged constitute a minor offence and (2) the accused having been informed of his right to a trial by jury does not object to a summary trial, then the case will go ahead in the District Court with no reference to the DPP unless it is a scheduled offence under the Offences Against the State Acts.

No in point of fact the DPP is required to give directions as to mode of trial in respect of every single indictable offence charged if the offence is also triable summarily.

coylemj wrote: »

That's not how it works. The decision as to whether the facts as alleged constitute a minor offence or not is for the District Court, not the DPP.

With some regret, I'm beginning to think you don't know 'how it works' at all but sort of yes (see the test referred to above) but 'how it works' is in fact that for all indictable offences which have the potential to be tried summarily the DPP must indicate to the court how he or she wishes the offence to be tried, summarily or on indictment.

That is so in respect of the most minor shoplifting (although in cases of that nature the DPP tends to issue 'standing directions' that if a given case meets certain criteria a specific direction is not required for the prosecutor to indicate the DPP's consent to summary disposal.

coylemj wrote: »

However if the Gardai tell the DPP that the accused is continuously getting away with pleading guilty in the District Court and getting short sentences, they can ask for a writ of indictment to force the District Justice to send it up to the Circuit Court so that the guy can get a stiff sentence which based on his previous record he probably deserves.

I don't know where you get the language you use here from - I've certainly never come across it in practice. In any event, the gardai don't 'ask for a writ of indictment', they may in a report to the DPP indicate a recommendation that the DPP does not consent to summary disposal despite the apparently minor nature of the offence in light of the accused's previous history. Sometimes the direction for trial on indictment comes back irrespective of any such request based on that history as related to the DPP.

Also an indictment would never 'force the DJ to send it up' or anything like that, in fact an indictment by definition will never be before the District Court and will only come into existence after the accused has been returned for trial and sent forward to the Circuit, Central or Special Criminal Court.

To be frank you have asserted so strongly that you are correct and other posters are wrong that I think it is reasonable to ask for the source in law of your information/opinion although these are not really matters of opinion.

Anyway the correct answer to the OP's question (can an accused insist on a jury trial on an indictable offence) is 'sometimes depending on the particular offence with which he or she is charged'.

selfrep wrote: »

So let me clarify this, if the charges are indictable but the judge decides it can be tried on summary charges in district court the judge has to offer the accused the chance of trial by jury and the accused must refuse same in order for it to be tried summarily?... so if the charges are indeed indictable and merit a circuit court hearing but the judge in district court can opt to hear it summarily but he must offer the accused the chance to trial by jury and accused must refuse it? am I right?

No, Jonnyskeleton was right here in post 6

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

not all indictable offences have a right to trial by jury. It depends onthese specific offence.

In the interests of accuracy, if the DJ thought the charge 'merited a circuit court hearing' by definition this would not constitute a minor offence and he or she would then be obliged to refuse jurisdiction and send it upstairs.

selfrep

so if a person was charged with a breach of section 13(1) post office amendment act 1951, as substituted by the postal and telecommunications services act 1983 and amended by section 7 of the postal and telecommunications services amendment act 1999 if the case is done summarily there are one set one fines and maximum time and if indictment there is another set of fines and longer jail time........if the judge decides to hear it summarily even though it could be done on indictment can the accused ask for a circuit court judge and jury and to be tried on indictment does this help? cos I dont understand the above posts totally, the charges merit an indictment or summary hearing so who decides in this instance and what can the accused do to ensure they get judge and jury.....i know it sounds strange but what if the accused wants judge and jury and indictment charges and doesnt want the summary hearing with judge alone?

Reloc8

A definitive answer would require reviewing a number of Acts starting with the first schedule to the Criminal Justice Act 1951 and amendments thereto which to be honest I'm not about to do.

From recollection however I believe the answer is no, the defendant has no right to insist on a jury trial for that offence.

He or she should seek the advice of a properly qualified solicitor expert in criminal law and take the above series of posts as a good example of why you should never accept the postings of randomers on the Internet as being sound just because they say so.

johnnyskeleton

coylemj wrote:

By definition if it's indictable the accused has a right to trial by jury.

by default they are tried by a jury, but in hybrid type offences the accused doesn't always have the right to elect trial on indictment

The DPP never 'opts' for summary trial in the case of bread and butter crimes like assault and burglary, that is a decision for the District Court after the accused waives his right to a trial by jury. By default the DPP doesn't get involved unless he wants to kick it up to the Circuit or Special Criminal Court.

What I mean is that if (1) the judge decides the facts as alleged constitute a minor offence and (2) the accused having been informed of his right to a trial by jury does not object to a summary trial, then the case will go ahead in the District Court with no reference to the DPP unless it is a scheduled offence under the Offences Against the State Acts.

the first stage in th process, where there is an option to try a case summarily or on indictment, is that the dpp relays his directions as to how the case is to be tried. If he directs trial on indictment then it has to be sent forward. If he elects summary disposal, the next stage is Goethe judge to accept summary jurisdiction. Finally in certain types of offence (burglary, but not assault) the accused has a right to elect for trial on indictment or to accept summary trial. Technically the accused is consenting to summary disposal but let's not split hairs.

That's not how it works. The decision as to whether the facts as alleged constitute a minor offence or not is for the District Court, not the DPP.

the dpp has a constitutional role exercising the ags prosecutorial function on her behalf. This means that he must comply with the constitution, in particular article 38. This means that in assessing whether to direct summary trial or trial on indictment, he is exercising his function to determine whether he is of the view the offence is minor or not minor.

However if the Gardai tell the DPP that the accused is continuously getting away with pleading guilty in the District Court and getting short sentences, they can ask for a writ of indictment to force the District Justice to send it up to the Circuit Court so that the guy can get a stiff sentence which based on his previous record he probably deserves.

what? Writ of indictment? "getting away with pleading guilty in the District Court and getting short sentences" sounds like you have no respect for the decisions of District Court judges, but also is beside the point. It would be extraordinary if someone who had committed 100 minor thefts was sent forward on his 101th minor theft just to teach him a lesson. It would be equally extraordinary if a circuit court judge gave him a stiff sentence because of his record.

There are principles in irish law concerning sentencing, the Tiernan prinicples, which state that the appropriate sentence takes account of the severity of the offence and also the circumstances of the offender. It would be a mistake of principle to give someone a heavy sentence because of their circumstances without regard to the trivial nature of the offence.