Japan Retrial System to Retain Appeals by Prosecutors

Tokyo, Feb. 2 (Jiji Press)–A subcommittee of a Japanese government panel approved by a majority vote Monday the outline of a review of Japan’s retrial system that would continue to allow prosecutors to file appeals against a court’s decision to start a retrial. The decision by the criminal law subcommittee of the Legislative Council, which advises the justice minister, is consistent with the Justice Ministry’s proposal, and the current system will therefore be maintained. The Japan Federation of Bar Associations and other organizations criticized the decision, saying that prompt relief for victims of false charges cannot be expected. The council will hold a general meeting Feb. 12 and present the outline to the justice minister. The government hopes to submit a bill to revise the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Diet, Japan’s parliament, after the House of Representatives election on Sunday. The JFBA and a nonpartisan group of Diet members, along with other parties concerned, have consistently called for banning prosecutors from filing appeals against a retrial decision, mainly because they can prolong the process to open retrials. In the case of Iwao Hakamata, who was found not guilty in a retrial for the 1966 murder of a family in Shizuoka Prefecture, central Japan, Shizuoka District Court decided to start the retrial in 2014. The prosecution, however, filed an immediate appeal, delaying the start of the retrial for about nine years. The subcommittee considered both a plan to ban appeals and one to continue the current system. On Monday, its outline was backed by 10 out of 13 members, excluding the head of the subcommittee. The remaining three opposed it. The outline also calls for a new provision that would allow courts to order the prosecution to disclose evidence if certain conditions are met. It includes a penalty provision that imposes a prison sentence of up to one year or a fine of up to 500,000 yen for those who use disclosed evidence for purposes other than their original intent, such as providing it to individuals supporting defendants or media organizations. In past cases of false charges, there have been instances in which defense teams released new evidence. Additionally, a “screening” provision that allows a court to dismiss requests for retrials deemed groundless would be sought. A “disqualification” provision would also be proposed to exclude from subsequent court hearings a judge who issued a decision to start a retrial. The subcommittee added to the outline supplementary provisions that are not legally binding, showing consideration for the opposition from some members. Regarding disclosure of evidence, the provisions call for making appropriate decisions so that the scope would not be unduly narrow. Regarding screening, the provisions seek appropriate court decisions so that retrial requests would not be dismissed lightly. END [Copyright The Jiji Press, Ltd.]