Rep. Tomomi Inada (LDP) said she cannot evaluate a revised proposal to reform Japan's retrial system following a party meeting this week [1].
The dispute centers on whether prosecutors should be allowed to appeal court decisions that grant a retrial. If the government restricts these appeals, it could accelerate the process for prisoners to challenge their convictions—a move long sought by human rights advocates but resisted by some legal officials.
The controversy intensified after the Ministry of Justice presented a revised bill on May 7, 2024 [1]. This version included a clause that would, in principle, prohibit prosecutors from filing appeals against the start of a retrial [1].
During a joint meeting of the LDP's Legal Affairs Division and the Judicial System Research Committee on May 15, 2024, Inada said she disagreed with the ministry's approach [2]. She said that the current system, which allows appeals to remain, is flawed [4].
Inada said the government's handling of the legislation was insincere [2]. She said that the ministry did not listen to the concerns of lawmakers, stating, "They don't listen to our side even one millimeter" [2].
The tension highlights a rift within the ruling party and the justice ministry over the balance of power between the state and the accused. While the proposed amendment seeks to streamline the path to a new trial, Inada's rejection suggests that the current draft does not go far enough or fails to address specific procedural concerns [2].
Inada's criticism came after the LDP meeting concluded, where she said that the persistence of the appeal process is problematic [4].
“"I cannot evaluate it at all."”
The clash between Rep. Inada and the Ministry of Justice reflects a broader struggle over the 'retrial wall' in Japan's judiciary. By attempting to prohibit prosecutor appeals, the government is trying to prevent cases from being stalled for years in higher courts. However, Inada's strong opposition indicates that the LDP is not in consensus on how to restructure these legal safeguards, potentially delaying the passage of a law that would make it easier for the wrongly convicted to seek exoneration.
