When does notifying an accused who is inside the court building of a hearing date carry the same effect as serving a summons on that accused?
General information · Not legal advice
Material to check
In a practice file, we read the note or record that places the accused inside the court's premises at the time of the notice, the paper notifying the accused of the hearing date, and any proof of service of a summons, since the provision turns on where the accused was when the notice was given.
These are types of material to look for, not evidence already verified by PRO SE.
Where readings differ
One reading takes the provision at its word: where an accused is within the court's premises, notifying that accused of the trial hearing date has the same effect as service of the summons, so no separate summons need be served for that hearing.
Another reading notes that the provision says nothing about how the notification is given or recorded, and nothing about a hearing date notified on an earlier visit inside the premises, so the file has to show what was notified, when, and to whom.
Your judgment
If the accused was inside the court's premises when notified of one hearing date, could a later hearing date be shown to have carried the same effect, and by what record?
PRO SE does not make this decision or keep a case record on this public site.When to reconsider
We look at this again if the provision is amended to define the court's premises or the form the notification must take, or if a court decision explains how far the deemed effect of service reaches.