Summary offence

For summary conviction offences that fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government (including all criminal law), section 787 of the Criminal Code specifies that, unless another punishment is provided for by law, the maximum penalty for a summary conviction offence is a sentence of 2 years less a day of imprisonment, a fine of $5,000 or both.

Typical examples for summary offences in Hong Kong include possession of a simulated bomb, drunkenness, taking photographs in courts, careless driving and pretending to be a public officer.

In such proceedings there is no jury; the appointed judge, or a panel of three lay magistrates, decides the guilt or innocence of the accused.

[14] Sir William Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765–1769), described summary offences thus: By a summary proceeding I mean principally such as is directed by several acts of parliament (for the common law is a stranger to it, unless in the case of contempts) for the conviction of offenders, and the inflicting of certain penalties created by those acts of parliament.

An institution designed professedly for the greater ease of the subject, by doing him speedy justice, and by not harassing the freeholders with frequent and troublesome attendances to try every minute offence.

In particular, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wrote in a 1964 dissent: "It is high time, in my judgment, to wipe out root and branch the judge-invented and judge-maintained notion that judges can try criminal contempt cases without a jury.