Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) lawmakers are debating whether to ban prosecutor appeals in a proposed amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure [1].

The dispute centers on whether the ban on appeals should be placed in the main body of the law or as a supplementary provision. This distinction is critical because it determines the permanence and legal weight of the restriction on prosecutors, which critics argue currently causes undue delays in retrial proceedings [1], [2].

During a meeting at the LDP headquarters on May 15, 2024, discussions began at 2 p.m. [1], [3] and continued for more than two hours [1]. Some members said the government's current revised plan is not sufficient [1]. Lawmakers are concerned that allowing prosecutors to appeal retrial decisions leads to prolonged trials, hindering the pursuit of justice for the wrongly convicted [2], [4].

Rep. Tomomi Inada (LDP) said, "Prosecutor appeals should be prohibited" [2]. Other members pushed for a stronger stance against the Ministry of Justice. Rep. Yoshio Ide (LDP) said, "The LDP does not exist for the Ministry of Justice. It exists for the people. Do not forget that" [4].

While the government has indicated a goal to submit the bill to the Diet by the 10th [4], the internal party conflict creates uncertainty. Some reports suggest that the submission of the bill may be postponed entirely if a consensus on the placement of the appeal ban is not reached [4].

The debate reflects a tension between the executive branch's desire for a manageable legal transition and lawmakers' demands for a systemic overhaul to prevent the state from blocking retrials through repetitive appeals [1], [2].

“"Prosecutor appeals should be prohibited"”

This legislative battle highlights a fundamental shift in how Japan is approaching the rights of the accused in retrial cases. By attempting to ban prosecutor appeals, the LDP is moving toward a system that prioritizes the timely resolution of potential wrongful convictions over the traditional power of the state to contest court rulings. The disagreement over the 'main text' versus 'supplementary provisions' is not merely semantic; it is a fight over whether these protections are a permanent feature of the legal system or a temporary measure.