Discussions on Reform of Retrial System: Speeding up Court Proceedings Must Be Aim of Overhaul

Editorial

15:37 JST, December 7, 2025

Retrials, which redo criminal trials, are a last resort of redress for people who have been wrongfully convicted. Keeping this fundamental purpose in mind, the system must be reformed to be more effective.

The Legislative Council has been discussing a review of the retrial system. The move came about because the Criminal Procedure Code has few provisions on how retrials should proceed, leading to insufficient disclosure of evidence and prolonged court proceedings.

In a 1966 case in which members of a family were killed in Shizuoka Prefecture, it took 58 years after Iwao Hakamata was arrested on murder charges to finalize his acquittal in a retrial. A 1986 murder case in which a junior high school girl was killed in Fukui required 38 years for its defendant to be acquitted.

The suffering endured by the former defendants detained for long periods of time due to wrongful convictions is beyond imagination. To prevent similar recurrences, the retrial system must be overhauled to ensure swift court proceedings.

In the case of Hakamata, it took about 30 years from seeking a retrial until color photographs of the bloodstained clothing were disclosed. The unnatural appearance of the evidence in these photographs led to his acquittal. His lawyers criticized this delayed disclosure as an act of concealing evidence by investigative authorities.

If this crucial evidence had been disclosed promptly, the false accusation against him would surely have been cleared much sooner.

A major focus of the envisioned reform is how to legally regulate the disclosure of evidence. However, the discussions on evidence disclosure have fallen into disarray. While council members who are lawyers have called for broadening the scope of the disclosure, other members including prosecutors have argued that limited disclosure is sufficient.

Given this situation, legal scholars and others who are not on the council have taken the unusual step of issuing a statement expressing concern that specifying limited disclosure could be a regression from the current retrial system.

It is no wonder that Hakamata’s sister, Hideko, expressed her distress, saying at a press conference, “In this situation, it makes no sense why on earth Iwao spent nearly 50 years in prison.”

As for regular trials, a rule to significantly widen the scope of evidence disclosure by prosecutors was introduced in 2005 in preparation for the implementation of trials involving lay judges. A system that requires prosecutors to present lists of evidence was also launched, allowing the defense counsel to scrutinize evidence.

However, in reality, these rules do not apply retroactively to cases that took place before their introduction. It seems logical to apply disclosure rules that are comparable to those in regular trials for situations such as retrials for serious cases.

Prosecutors are representatives of the public interest, and evidence obtained through investigations is a public asset. The manner of disclosure, which could raise suspicion about the intentional concealment of evidence, leaves room for doubt.

The responsibility of courts is also on the agenda for the council’s discussions. It is hoped that consideration will be made for establishing legal provisions to urge judges presiding over retrials to expedite proceedings.

 (From The Yomiuri Shimbun, Dec. 7, 2025)