Shoji YAZAWA
l
Matters/Affairs of a case
On a frightful early morning day, a child’s head was found in front of an
elementary school gate. The bizarreness (macabre-ness) shocked the nation. After a couple of days of the incident, a junior high
school boy living in the neighborhood was arrested as a culprit of the
case. The unexpectedness of this accusation stunned people yet again.
●The processes or
circumstances of the case:
A few days after the affair, two policemen came to the boy’s house
and took him to the police station to interrogate him. The police had already
concluded that the boy is a culprit of this unpleasant case. The police
restrained the boy and treated him as if he were an adult suspect. They kept treating him as a prime suspect and
demanded his information on the incident; however, he claimed that the case was
unrelated to him. The police, in a process of investigation, requested a
handwritten analysis from the boy so that it could be compared to the
threatening letter that was found as evidence.
But as a result, his handwriting did not match. However, despite the
result, the police used fraudulent means to frame and deceive the boy. They
made it so that the handwritten analysis indicated a match for the threatening
letter, then he was forced to confess.
Due to the confession, the police requested a warrant, arrested him, and
sent him back to a public prosecutor from the family court in order to
prosecute the boy*1.
Although the confession was sole evidence, the boy’s defense
counsel stuck to it. The incompetence
led to errors during the trial like not asking for physical evidence such like
an offensive weapon during. Moreover,
Igaki chief justice concluded the record statement taken before and by a police
officer, was drawn by fraudulent means, then it was removed from the evidence
record; yet, startlingly, the chief justice judged that the boy’s voluntary confession
(in a record statement taken by a prosecutor) has almost the same contents as
the police record. In this matter, the boy was convicted, and sent to a
reformatory.
Evidently, (certainly) this
case was nothing else but a systematic false accusation by the prosecution and
the police.
Objection
to the ruling by the court from third parties after the case
This case bushed and isolated not only him, but also his family by labeling them as inhuman. In addition, defense counsels, who were with the boy, were at the beck and call of the judgment, and turned a deaf ear to both objections and questions. After that, the third party started claiming and questioning a case concerning juvenile crime. First was the claim of "Protection of personal liberty". Second, an accusation and Semi-prosecution*2 request. And third, the request of the revocation of probation for retrial.
1. Protection of personal liberty requests
The family court designated the boy with a behavioral disorder, and decided to treat him to prevent him from shifting to mental disease. According to the decision he was sent to medical reformatory; however, the chief of the reform bureau of the Ministry of Justice announced that the boy were to be taken to Kanto medical reformatory. Such an announcement might be the cause of bullying to the boy at the reformatory; moreover, collective treatment that is required by the Family court decision can no longer be taken (because of the announcement). Furthermore, the reformatory didn't provide facilities or staff demanded by the family court; as a matter of fact, some reports said he was kept in a single room observed by a camera.
Such a state of restriction infringes upon the purpose of the Habeas Corpus Act, and this case demands "fitting treatment", viz 1. Ask about moving the boy to another appropriate juvenile medical facility or reformatory. 2. No announcements of transported places, with the use of a fictitious name until the case, at least, calm down. The court of justice rejected a request of this protection of personal liberty for the following reasons.
1. The restrainee was not recognized as
"a person who is restricted corporal freedom without legal
procedures".
2. When the person is restrained through a
court decision, only if the judgment has done without one's authority or was
conspicuously violate the statutory process*4, otherwise since people who interested in the boy’s dealing
ware able to give family court counsel “there exist other appropriate method to
relief the restrainee of this case” *5
Therefore, on
the ground of Habeas Corpus Act clause 1, article 11, and Habeas corpus rule
number 6, clause 1, article21, “didn’t pass examine procedure”, and the court
of justice rejected an application of this case.
2. Complaint from a third party and semi-prosecution
request*2
Accusation for the issue of this case and
dropping the prosecutors on Oct 9th in 1998.
Complaints accused policemen of the Hyogo prefectural
police office and prosecutors of the
Request of semi-prosecution and court’s response
Immediately, complaints claimed
semi-prosecution to
Complaints asked
for the release of their “explanation of adjudge of non-prosecution” and
“opinionative documents,” but the office didn’t release and even give them an
explanation of the reason of the dropping of the semi-prosecution request.
February 19th, 2001, the Prosecutor’s office dismissed the
application.
The Applicants appealed to
3. Request of the revoking probation for retrial
This case was a matter of petition to the Kobe Family
Court for revoking probation of the boy by lawyer, scholar, and knowledgeable
people who doubted the court decision; the boy is the criminal of the Kobe
Matter.
All of the claimants of this case are third people who
didn’t have any interest in the boy.
While their parents and attorney didn’t request for
retrial, claimants groped for some methods to retrial on behalf of them. They
sought for a measure to revoking probation for retrial on account of the
non-existence of the boy’s delinquency as a third party.
Thereafter, May 23rd 2002,
claimants requested the Kobe Family Court to revoke probation ex officio on
account of non-existence of the boy’s delinquency. It appeared that the court
office put the record on the daybook, nevertheless, a judge of the court “told”
just “wasn’t acceptable” through his secretary by phone. According to the
secretary there was “no special reason (for rejection)” and the method used was
not of formal notification just by phone call. In spite of bringing forward the
rational and concrete reason for denying the boy’s crime, their answer for the
request was unconvincing, and could not help but doubt the judge’s discernment.
Claimants indicated the peculiarity of this
case, and unforgivingness in the case of misjudgment to the judge, and then
they submitted a written inquiry to encourage the judge in reexamination. But,
the judge ignored the opinion.
*1. This is the necessary procedure for juvenile
crime prosecution in Japan called 逆送-gaykusou
*2. If third
party, who accuse or prosecute an authority abuse crime, have objection against
prosecutor's decision of dropping a case, they can request the court of justice
to accompany with the case. This procedure call 準起訴-junkiso or semi-prosecution.
*3. Article 2
of the Habeas Corpus Act
*4. Article 4
of the Habeas Corpus rule
*5 Article 4 of
the proviso in the rule
*6 Article 194
of the Criminal Law