A regular seminar was held on March 21, 2001 entitled “To Promote Disclosure of Criminal Case Documents.” JCLU Member Hisashi Muto spoke of his experience when his request based on the Finalized Criminal Case Documents Law for disclosure of the documents of the Lockheed case (Marubeni route) was rejected. J. Hironaka, JCLU member attorney, commented on the issues involved in the Jun-Kokoku-Quasi-Appeal against such rejection. Finally, Toshiaki Fujimoto, JCLU member attorney and member of the Information Disclosure Committee, reported on the draft Bill of Disclosure of Criminal Case Documents.
Hisashi Muto
I would like to report on the process of the Jun-Kokoku-Quasi-Appeal which I instituted. Based upon the Finalized Criminal Case Documents Law, I requested disclosure of the documents of the Lockheed - Marubeni route- case. However, I was merely allowed to read the judgment, the records of “foreign interrogation by permission”, and some other documents related to the procedure, but not to copy the records.
This shows there is a defect in the Law. I think the defect was revealed more distinctively this time than the time when Mr. Shinji Nakamura asked for disclosure of the information on the case of Mr. Shin Kanemaru concerning his violation of the Control of Political Funds Law.
When we went to the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office in November 1996 to ask for disclosure of the documents of the Lockheed - Marubeni route- case, while it was supposed to be disclosed in principle according to the Law, they acted as if the case documents were not to be disclosed. It was not until September 1998 that we were allowed to read the judgments of the case. To see the records of examination upon request, we had to wait even longer, until June 1999. By then, two and half years had already passed since my appeal.
We asked for permission to copy the records in December of the same year, but we received a Notice of Denial of Copying in August of the following year. We then filed the Jun-Kokoku-Quasi-Appeal in January 2001 with the Tokyo District Court to quash the said denial by the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office. In February, attorneys Hironaka, Iida and Kanda met the judge in charge of said Quasi-Appeal. The JCLU has been supporting our case since June 2001.
Jun'ichiro Hironaka
According to the prosecutor in charge, inspection of the documents could be permitted but copying couldn't. We wondered why because copying was permitted in most cases. Usually copying is permitted for attorneys who want to read the documents of related cases, as is the case for scholars and insurance companies. As the judgment of the Urawa District Court indicates, we deem the copying to be an integral part of inspection. With the advent of the Information Disclosure Law, copying now must be allowed whenever information is disclosed.
We are mindful that some conditions could be imposed for copying because it has a different harmful consequences than inspection. But the blanket ban on copying amounts to denial of disclosure itself. The Public Prosecutors Office says that they are worried about harmful consequences accompanying copying such as unintended circulation. However, the sanction in the form of damages would be sufficient for those who do not comply with the conditions provided. We made clear in our Jun-Kokoku-Quasi-Appeal that it was not realistic to treat administrative information and judicial documents differently. If the former should be disclosed freely, the latter should be treated likewise.
Toshiaki Fujimoto
To correct the defects of the present Finalized Criminal Case Documents Law, as were pointed out by Messrs. Muto and Hironaka, the Information Disclosure Committee of the JCLU would like to propose a draft “Bill of Disclosure of Criminal Case Documents.” The Committee has already drafted a “Bill of Disclosure of Legislative Information” and a “Bill of Disclosure of Court Information.
”To facilitate the realization of the Disclosure of Criminal Case Documents Law, we made articles the same as those in the present Disclosure of Information Laws. Article 1 provides that “Under the idea of sovereignty of the people, criminal case documents shall be disclosed upon request to guarantee the right to know.” We also showed disclosure of criminal case document is the right of people by clearly indicating “Every person” can request the disclosure.
We omitted Article 6 of the present Finalized Criminal Case Documents Law, which provides for the obligations of the inspector. Furthermore, we expanded the scope of the object of disclosure from “criminal trial case” under the present law to all documents related to criminal procedure including investigation, trial, execution of penalty, and the like.
In addition, we aimed at making uniform the period during which the documents should be kept. The present Law exempts exception of disclosure of the cases 3 years passed in Clause 2 of the Article 4. We omitted this clause although the other exceptions (Article 7 of the Bill) are the same as the present Law.
The present Law commissions the prosecutor in charge of custody to implement disclosure, but we added “the chief of the police department who was in charge of the investigation.” Finally, we added that a response shall be made within 20 days after the request of disclosure (Article 12). Such a condition is not included in the present Law. The charges for disclosure shall be the actual cost of disclosure.
Editor's Note: Mr. Muto's Jun-Kokoku-Quasi-Appeal was rejected. Then Mr. Muto and his defense council filed a Tokubetsu-Kokoku-Special-Appeal to the Supreme Court on September 2001. The proceeding continues now.
As for the draft Bill of Disclosure of Criminal Case Documents, the committee proposed its summary and hears public comments on the bill by the end of Nov. 2003. The summary of the bill is available on the JCLU website (Japanese Language Only).