Talk:Summary offence
| WikiProject Law | (Rated Start-class, High-importance) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Summary offence article. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
||
Contents |
Correction of CC sections [edit]
I have Martin's 2008 in front of me. The section setting out max sentences for summary offences is s.787, not s.785. I have corrected this. I also adjusted the sentence that followed, since the section was identified correctly (s.786) but it no longer "follows" the section mentioned immediately prior to it.205.194.127.36 (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Amicus
"Summary Offense" in United States? [edit]
I haven't heard of any states that classify crimes as "summary offenses." If this can be verified, it would be noteworthy to mention it in this article. --Ted 00:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
United States [edit]
Shouldn't the top section of this page be referred to as United States, as Canada is in the bottom section? After all wikipedia is a multi-national site.
Furthermore a general principles point should be made... not just a few national examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.89.219 (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Spelling [edit]
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 [edit]
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)
