Reform of Retrial System: Will This Move Lead to Early Redress for People Wrongfully Convicted?

Editorial

16:12 JST, January 18, 2026

Convicting an innocent person in court constitutes a grave human rights violation by the state. A system must be developed to promptly correct judicial errors and provide relief to victims of wrongful convictions.

Discussions by the Legislative Council, which is considering reforming the retrial system for retrying cases in which guilty verdicts were finalized, have entered their final stage. Because the Criminal Procedure Code has few provisions stipulating how retrials should proceed, questions have been raised over the system that requires a long time to clear wrongful convictions.

The council has reportedly reached a consensus on stipulating in the Criminal Procedure Code that courts are obliged to order prosecutors, who hold criminal evidence, to submit the evidence.

The way to establish rules for the disclosure of evidence was the main focus of the discussions. Making such disclosures mandatory can be called significant.

In a 1966 murder case in which family members were killed in Shizuoka Prefecture, it took about 30 years from seeking a retrial until color photographs of bloodstained clothing were disclosed. This evidence led to the acquittal of Iwao Hakamata, who had been on death row.

In a 1986 murder of a junior high school girl in Fukui, the disclosure of crucial evidence took about 20 years. If the evidence had been disclosed promptly in either case, the retrial periods could have been significantly shorter.

In a criminal case, evidence obtained by investigative organizations is a public asset. Nevertheless, prosecutors were reluctant to disclose the evidence, and their exchanges of arguments with defense teams, which stressed the need of the disclosure, were a factor in prolonging the retrials.

If disclosure becomes mandatory, the defense side would have a better chance of proving that a wrongful conviction has occurred based on new evidence.

Defining the scope of evidence subject to disclosure will be a challenge. Legal scholars and others who are not on the council have expressed concern that an insufficient scope could result in a regression from the current system.

The purpose of retrials is to save people who were falsely accused, and the way to proceed with retrials is left to the courts. Judges must take a stance of ordering prosecutors to disclose as much evidence as possible. Through study groups’ discussions and other means, they should explore ways to realize appropriate evidence disclosure.

The Legislative Council is also discussing possible rules regarding the management of disclosed evidence. These include penalties for former defendants or defense counsel who commit acts such as providing photocopies of evidence to third parties. Such rules could pose serious problems.

In Hakamata’s case, the color photographs of clothing, which was the evidence, were widely shared with the public through his supporters and others, and this action ultimately led to his acquittal in the retrial.

Retrial proceedings are closed to the public and cannot be externally scrutinized. Furthermore, if the defense side provides disclosed evidence to media outlets, they could face punishment. Regulations that will infringe upon the public’s right to know are unacceptable.

 (From The Yomiuri Shimbun, Jan. 18, 2026)