Families of a Late Defendant Indict Court Judges
The family of late defendant in the case of Ohkawara Kakohki sued 37 judges in the courts on April 6th, arguing that they had failed in bailing the defendant with serious cancer. It is unusual for court judges to be indicted with charge of wrong decision on issuing warrant for arrest or on bail. The plaintiff hopes to set a momentum to remove “hostage justice” from judicial system in Japan.
In this case, police arrested managers of the manufacturing company in March 2020 with suspicion of exporting restricted machine to China. The defendants argued that the machine would not be used for producing military weapons. Although public prosecutors indicted the managers in March 2020, they cancelled their indictment in July 2021 without presenting any reason. It is supposed that the prosecutors realized that the export had not been illegal.
One of the defendants, Kazuo Aishima, was found as suffering from stomach cancer during detention. Although he and his lawyer demanded a bail, the police and public prosecutors refused it and the courts allowed those law enforcement organizations to continue to take Aishima in custody. Article 89 of Code of Criminal Procedure determines that request of bail should be accepted except some cases including possibility of escape or destruction of evidence. Aishima died in February 2021.
After public prosecutors canceled their indictment, families of Aishima, with other defendants and the company, filed a lawsuit against the government of Japan and Tokyo Prefectural Government in September 2021, seeking compensation for their damages caused by detention. The court ordered the defendants to pay 162 million yen.
In April 2026, families of Aishima filed another lawsuit against 37 judges of the courts, who were in charge of this case. The plaintiffs argue that those judges were responsible for issuing warrant of arresting Aishima, decision of detention or dismissal of requests for bail. The Supreme Court has made a decision in 1982 that court judges are responsible for compensation only when they take action beyond their authority. Lawyers for the families assert that the decision would not be applied to Aishima’s case.
It was obvious that Aishima was in a critical condition when he requested bail to have necessary medical treatment. Public prosecutors could not deny his request, if the court judges had dismissed their request of detention and approved Aishima’s vail. Aishima’s families suppose that the court kept on endorsing the request from public prosecutors without consideration of Aishima’s health condition. They also argue that Aishima had no reason to escape or destroy evidence after bail. “This is none other than state’s abuse under the name of justice,” told Aishima’s son, Kazuto Aishima, at a press conference in Foreign Correspondent Club of Japan.
It is usual for public prosecutors not to let their detainees bailed. Their nominal reason is that the detainee may escape from prosecutors’ watch or destroy evidence related to the case. It is very rare for the courts to dismiss the request for detention. This can often lead to extremely long detention, as seen in the case of former chairman of Nissan, Carlos Ghosn, for 108 days. This is called “detention justice” in Japan. The lawsuit by Aishima’s family is expected to change this detention system that is very unique in the world.
Comments
Post a Comment