Mandatory Indictment System: How Can The Issues That Have Emerged Be Overcome?

Editorial

15:00 JST, April 21, 2025

Calls are growing for a review of the system that allows the judgment of private citizens to bring a mandatory indictment in cases in which prosecutors had decided not to indict. This is occurring because defendants are often left in a state of instability for long periods of time, and many cases end up with acquittal.

The state should examine past cases and consider mechanisms to ensure that the purpose of the system is appropriately reflected, such as narrowing the scope of cases that are subject to mandatory indictment.

The mandatory indictment system was introduced in 2009 along with the lay judge system. Its purpose is to allow private citizens to review prosecutors’ decisions and reflect their opinions in the judicial system.

The Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution, consisting of 11 members selected by lottery among eligible voters, reviews cases in which prosecutors decided not to bring an indictment. If eight or more members decide over two reviews that the case is “appropriate for indictment,” the suspect is indicted. Once indicted, the case proceeds to a criminal trial.

Last month, the Supreme Court upheld lower court rulings and acquitted two former executives of Tokyo Electric Power Co., now Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings, Inc., who were mandatorily indicted for professional negligence resulting in death and injury in connection with the accident at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.

In 2013, prosecutors had decided not to indict the two because there were not enough suspicions, citing the difficulty of predicting the earthquake and tsunami. However, the committee decided on a mandatory indictment, arguing that the executives had failed to take necessary safety measures and caused the accident.

It took nine years for the acquittal to be finalized. Another former executive who faced a mandatory indictment in the case died during the trial. While it is significant to clarify the truth about the accident in court and resolve the issue of criminal responsibility, it cannot be denied that the burden on the defendants is heavy.

So far, 15 individuals have faced mandatory indictment in 11 cases, including the JR Fukuchiyama Line derailment accident and the case involving the funding management organization of Ichiro Ozawa. However, only two guilty rulings have been finalized.

In the case of the pedestrian bridge accident that occurred in the city of Akashi, Hyogo Prefecture, the trial was terminated without a ruling of guilty or not guilty, resulting in “dismissal of the case.” It is necessary to thoroughly review past cases to determine whether the decision for mandatory indictment was appropriate.

Mandatory indictment covers cases in which prosecutors deem that they are not able to bring an indictment because there is insufficient evidence to do so, so the hurdle to prove guilt is inherently high. It also has been seen as questionable that individuals subject to possible mandatory indictment have no opportunities to present their defense during the committee’s review process.

Experts have suggested that the scope of mandatory indictments should be limited to cases of “suspended indictment” in which there is sufficient evidence to prove guilt but prosecutors deferred, and that applying the system to cases such as “insufficient grounds for suspicion” should be handled with caution.

Establishing clear criteria for mandatory indictment may be difficult, but it is important to review the system of implementation while taking such opinions into consideration.

(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, April 20, 2025)