Redress for Victims of Wrongful Convictions: Is It Possible to Put an End to Prolonged Court Proceedings?

Editorial

17:25 JST, May 16, 2026

After many twists and turns, reform plans for the retrial system have finally been put together. There are still quite a few issues that remain to be addressed. The Diet should deliberate the plans thoroughly.

The retrial system that covers criminal cases where a guilty verdict has been finalized has been burdened by the current law, which lacks clear rules regarding proceedings. This is a major factor for retrials having taken many years.

False convictions, which stigmatize innocent people, constitute serious human rights violations by the state. It is highly significant that a step has been taken to prevent retrials from being prolonged excessively to relieve victims of false convictions as soon as possible.

During a preliminary review of the reform plans conducted by Liberal Democratic Party lawmakers, discussions intensified over whether to prohibit the prosecution from filing an appeal in cases where the court orders the commencement of a retrial.

The Justice Ministry opposed the proposed ban on appeals, arguing that if a finalized ruling handed down under the three-tier court system could be overturned by a single court decision to grant a retrial, legal stability would be lost.

In response, the lawmakers and others strongly objected, arguing that unless appeals were prohibited, relief for victims of wrongful convictions would be delayed. The ministry was repeatedly pressured to revise its reform plans, and ultimately included a provision prohibiting appeals, in principle.

However, even if appeals are prohibited, it would be pointless if the clash of arguments between the prosecution and the defense during retrial proceedings causes a trial to drag on.

It goes without saying that prosecutors should not repeatedly make arguments that are merely intended to save their organization’s face. It is also important for the courts and the defense to strive to expedite the retrial proceedings.

Another key pillar of the reform plans is the creation of a provision that will require the court to order the prosecution to submit evidence. Prosecutors have been said to be reluctant to disclose evidence, and arguments with defense counsel calling for evidence disclosure have continued endlessly.

Under the reform, the decision regarding what evidence to order the prosecution to disclose would be left to the judge’s discretion. It is essential that necessary evidence be disclosed in full. The judge’s management of the proceedings likely will be put to the test.

However, a problem remains. The reform plans include a provision that stipulates penalties for former defendants or their attorneys seeking retrial if they provide copies of disclosed evidence to third parties. In some past retrials, evidentiary items, such as investigative documents and photographs, were widely shared in society by supporters and media outlets. This has led to acquittals of defendants.

Retrial proceedings are closed to the public. Furthermore, if the provision of evidence to third parties is prohibited, the proceedings would be conducted entirely behind closed doors. Evidence is a public asset. Regulations that infringe upon the people’s right to know are unacceptable.

In the 1966 murder case in which four family members were killed in Shizuoka Prefecture, it took more than 40 years from the time the former defendant’s death sentence was finalized until he was acquitted in a retrial. Such an injustice must never be allowed to happen again.

(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, May 16, 2026)