LDP Refuses MOJ Draft for Retrial System Reform

Sanae Takaichi administration postponed submission of a bill of revised Code of Criminal Procedure to the Diet. The bill would include reform of retrial system to eliminate false charge. Although the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) attempted to maintain the right of public prosecutors to dispute request of retrial, some lawmakers in the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) firmly opposed the idea. There is a humanitarian concern that an innocent defendant will be blocked from release by public prosecutors’ dispute. 

Japan has three-instance system in trial. If a defendant cannot accept a decision of a district court, it can appeal to a high court. If it still disputes high court’s decision, the trial will be brought to the supreme court. A decision of the supreme court should be the final one. However, a defendant can request a retrial, only when it submits new evidence which is recognized by the court that it may prove innocence of the defendant.

 

However, the public prosecutors have a right to dispute starting retrial. It is not unusual that a retrial is delayed for years by the dispute. Although there was a discussion that the system of dispute must be abolished to avoid unnecessary delay of reviewing false accusation in a crime case, the MOJ drafted a bill of revised Code of Criminal Procedure which reserved the right of dispute for the public prosecutors.

 

Some lawmakers in the LDP recognized that the draft would undermine meanings of judicial reform. The LDP, as a long-time leading party, has a system to discuss a bill before the government submits it to the Diet. In a joint meeting of LDP Research Commission of Judicially System and Judicial Affairs Division of Policy Research Council on April 7th, former Minister of Justice, Keisuke Suzuki, demanded the ministry to reconsider the draft.

 

The MOJ has been reluctant to give up their right to dispute retrial. They argue that easy retrials will challenge current three-instance system, creating the fourth trial beyond a decision of the supreme court. However, a bill cannot pass the Diet without approval of LDP which has supermajority in the Lower House. The ministry decided to review their bill.

 

This judicial reform stems from a serious violation of humanity in Hakamada Case. As a defendant of a murder case in 1966, Iwao Hakamda, who was finally sentenced death penalty in 1980, requested a retrial for several times. Although the court decided to start retrial in 2014, receiving new evidences that indicated Hakamada’s innocence, the public prosecutors blocked it by disputing.

 

It took 9 years to start the retrial for Hakamada. The court found that the evidence of Hakamada’s crime, blood stain on shirts, was fabricated by law enforcement organizations and that Hakamada was innocent. Extremely long detention seriously damaged Hakamada’s mental condition to the extent he cannot clearly speak out his idea.

 

The revised bill of Code of Criminal Procedure is expected to include a provision that mandate the law enforcement organizations to disclose necessary evidence by request. But the ministry hopes to add limitation for the evidence not to be used for specific purpose. The experts criticize it as limitation of disclosure. It is unusual for a ministry to have this kind of fundamental opposition with the LDP.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

LDP Kickoffs Presidential Election

Contaminated Soil to Prime Minister’s Residence

Defense Ministers Meet in Seoul