Yes, but you have an understanding of what they are.
I'll quote from section 108.20 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders.
Subsection 108.20(1) says:(1) At the commencement of a summary trial, the accused, accompanied by the assisting officer, shall be brought before the officer presiding at the trial.
In subsection 108.20(3) it says: (3) Prior to receiving any evidence, the presiding officer shall
a. confirm with the assisting officer that he or she has ensured that the accused was made aware of the matters contained in paragraph 108.14(5) (Assistance to the Accused) prior to making an election under article 108.17 (Election to be Tried by Court Martial);
b. ask whether the accused requires more time to prepare the accused's case and grant any reasonable adjournment requested for that purpose; and
c. ask whether the accused wishes to admit any of the particulars of any charge.
As well, at the end of the summary trial, the presiding officer must inform the offender of his or her right to request a review authority to, and I quote:a. set aside a finding of guilty on the grounds that it is unjust; andb. alter the sentence on the ground that it is unjust or too severe.
Especially if it's detention, it has to be reviewed by the superior officer. That's immediately set aside and detention is reviewed, but the accused can then ask for a review of that sentence that is set aside, and then it is reviewed by the next superior officer. If it's a delegated officer and it's a major, it will go to the CO. If it's a CO hearing, it will go up to the brigade commander.
These would appear to be fairly good provisions for a person undergoing a summary trial. Could you please identify any specific issues you have in relation to these articles I just described?