Summary proceeding orders make up a large portion of criminal sentences and are often negotiated behind closed doors. In this case, we were able to observe the judge and prosecutor deliberate the summary proceedings order. The case shows how routine it is for courts to sentence people to very high fines with little information, putting them at risk of debt and prison for unpaid fines. It also shows how prosecutors enhance charges to include a weapon, even when the exact nature of the weapon or how and whether it was used is not fully known.

The defendant is absent, so the trial does not follow a regular procedure. Upon entering the courtroom, the judge immediately asks who the courtwatcher is, assuming that the defendant might have entered through the wrong door. When the courtwatcher identifies themselves as a visitor, the judge scoffs at the prosecutor, remarking, “Now we even get an audience for cases like this one”, but otherwise ignores them for the rest of the proceedings.

The charge is theft with a weapon. However, the judge considers a lesser charge, since the alleged theft only involved a small amount of food at a supermarket. The prosecutor, however, had previously discussed the case with a supervisor, who had requested a prison sentence rather than a fine. The alleged weapon is a pair of scissors, but the prosecutor notes that her case file does not include a photograph, so she says she is unsure whether it is a small pair of nail scissors or a larger item.

The judge expresses skepticism about the severity of the charge, stating that a prison sentence seems excessive. He asks the prosecutor to quickly reassess the case with the supervisor. The prosecutor leaves the room to make a call and returns with an adjusted request: a fine of 120 daily rates. The judge suggests reducing it to 90 instead. The prosecutor agrees, as long as the final charge explicitly mentions the weapon.

As the judge dictates the final order for the court record, he notes that the defendant stated during the arrest that they had no money for food. At no point does he raise the issue of whether the defendant would be able to pay the fine.