Dispute against Retrial Remains
Sanae Takaichi Cabinet approved on May 15th the bill of revised Code of Criminal Procedure which added new rules on retrial. Although the draft includes a clause that basically prohibits public prosecutors to dispute against a request of retrial, it still allows them disputing only when they had a “sufficient reason.” Voices of some lawmakers with the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) who demanded complete abolition of disputing were turned down.
The biggest point in discussion over retrial system has been whether the law should allow public prosecutors power to dispute a request of retrial. In the case of Iwao Hakamada who was wrongly charged with murder and sentenced death penalty, dispute by public prosecutors blocked Hakamada’s request for retrial and caused decades-long detention of him. The retrial was finally taken place and Hakamada was found innocent. The case ignited discussion over reform of the retrial system.
It is ordinary that bureaucrats in a ministry write draft of a bill and present it to the leading party before it is submitted to the Diet. The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) made the draft of revised law for retrial and presented to the Judicial Affairs Division of LDP Policy Research Council. Lawmakers in the division firmly opposed MOJ’s draft which reserved power for dispute against retrial. After intensive discussion, the LDP and MOJ reached an ambivalent agreement that dispute is ruled out but public prosecutors still can do it in some conditions.
There are a lot of inappropriate requests for retrial in actual judicial procedures. If public prosecutors cannot dispute against those requests, they will face a huge number of retrials in criminal cases. The MOJ draft was made based on recommendation of legal experts in the Judicial Council. However, the public prosecutors’ office made a fatal mistake in Hakamada’s case. Majority of public opinion is against dispute by public prosecutors.
Public prosecutors are responsible for investigating crimes and bringing a criminal to justice. They acknowledge themselves to be embodying social justice. However, Hakamada’s case totally undermined that precondition in judicial procedure. It will take a long time for the public prosecutors’ office to regain public confidence.
The bill will be discussed in the Diet before it passes. One of the other points for discussion is disclosure of evidence. The public prosecutors are reluctant to disclose evidences they have obtained. While current law does not have a rule for disclosing evidence, the draft demands the public prosecutors to disclose evidence that is necessary for requesting a retrial, even though it has conditions for limitation.
The draft prohibits using the disclosed evidence beyond assumed purposes. Defendants cannot open the evidence to the press. However, news reports on alleged evidence of murder by Hakamada, which were T-shirts with stain of blood, contributed to starting retrial. Some lawyers require transparency in treatment of evidences. It still is possible that the bill will be reconsidered with detailed examination in the Diet.
Comments
Post a Comment