107TH INTERNATIONAL
TRAINING COURSE
UNAFEI PAPER
UNAFEI PAPER

THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN JAPAN:
PROSECUTION
I. PUBLIC PROSECUTORS
A. Qualification
In Japan, a private attorney, a judge anda public prosecutor have quite the same
qualifications. There are other different
qualifications1, but they are so exceptionaland rare that only the important ones will
be focused upon.
To become a Japanese legal practitioner,
one must pass the National Bar
Examination, which is one of the mostdifficult examinations. About 700
candidates (about three percent those whotake the examination) pass each year. The
average age of successful candidates isabout 28 years old. Since most candidates
graduate from a university at the age of 22
or so, most of the candidates study under
the financial support by their parents forseveral years.
After passing the Examination, theymust take a two-year training course aslegal trainees at the Legal Research andTraining Institute of the Supreme Court.
Legal trainees are government officials
paid by the Supreme Court. The training
period consists of two phases:(1) academic training at the Institute forthe first four months and the last fourmonths; and(2) sixteen months of practical training.
Each trainee is dispatched to acertain prefectural district court,
public prosecutors office and private
law office.
This practical training enables thetrainees to choose their future careers
based on a comparison of each role.
1

See, e.g., the Court Organization Law, Articles 41,
42 and 44 (CJLJ p. 23), and the Public Prosecutors
Office Law (hereinafter PPOL), Article 18.

B. Recruitment
After completing such training, trainees
can become a private attorney, a judge or apublic prosecutor. Roughly speaking, morethan 500 trainees become private
attorneys, about 100 trainees become
judges and about 40 to 80 trainees become
public prosecutors annually. The possible
reasons for the smallest number include
the toughness of the work and frequenttransfers. If a judge or a public prosecutor
quits his job, he can become a private
attorney, and most of them do so. At
present, there are about 2,100 judges, 1,100
public prosecutors and 16,000 private
attorneys in Japan. Similarly, a private
attorney also can become a judge or a publicprosecutor. However the number of suchjudges or public prosecutors is quite small2.
C. Organization and Training
In Japan, the prosecution systemcomprises the Supreme Public Prosecutors
Office (headed by the Prosecutor-General),
8 High Public Prosecutors Offices (headed
by a Superintending Prosecutor), 50
District Public Prosecutors Offices (headed
by a Chief Prosecutor) and 203 branches,and 438 Local Public Prosecutors Offices(consisting mainly of Assistant Public
Prosecutors3).
Regarding the size of district publicprosecutors offices, the average office has
10 public prosecutors. The smallest one
has only 5 public prosecutors, and thelargest one has more than 200 publicprosecutors. Each office has a Chief and a2

In the last eight years, only 30 private lawyers havebecome subsequently judges. Only six professors
or assistant professors in legal science inuniversities have become judges since 1969 otherthan Supreme Court Justices.

39

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 53
Deputy Chief Prosecutor, who do notinvestigate and handle trials, but rather,focus on supervisory and administrative
matters. Thus, for example, in the smallest
office, only three public prosecutors
actually investigate and prosecute cases.
In small offices, the public prosecutor who
investigates and indicts a suspect, is thesame person who handles the trial. In
contrast, in large offices, two different
public prosecutors carry out these duties,
working in either the Investigation
Department (usually called “Criminal
A f f a i r s D e p a r t m e n t ” ) o r t h e Tr i a l
Department.
First-year public prosecutors used towork at one of the largest offices such as
Tokyo, Osaka or Sapporo for only one year.
Since two years ago, they undergo a twomonth training all together at the Research
and Training Institute of the Ministry ofJustice. Afterwards, they are assigned toa relatively large-sized public prosecutors
office, other than the Tokyo office, for 10
months. Then they are transferred every
two or three years. In their first ten years
as public prosecutors, most of them workat various sized offices.
During their career, public prosecutors
receive three kinds of job-related training
at the Research and Training Institute of
the Ministry of Justice, in addition to thefirst-year training described above.

3

The number of assistant public prosecutors is about900. Their qualification is different from publicprosecutors’. They have to pass a special
examination conducted by the Ministry of Justiceafter working in a criminal justice agency for acertain period. See PPOL Article 18, paragraph 2.
They deal with mainly misdemeanors like theft andtraffic offenses.

40

1. Course for Third- and FourthYear Public Prosecutors
The number of participants is limited toapproximately 40 at one time. It is
conducted twice a year for a duration ofseven days each time. The purpose of thiscourse is to develop the expertise of publicprosecutors who deal with general criminalcases. It consists of lectures anddiscussions. The lectures are given byexperts in various fields, including seniorpublic prosecutors, on fundamental
knowledge and skills necessary to performbetter as a public prosecutor, including
bookkeeping and accounting. Discussions
are based on real cases to find out how theyshould deal with them for better
disposition.
2. Course for Eighth- and NinthYear Public Prosecutors
The number of participants is limited toapproximately 40 at one time. It is
conducted twice a year for a duration of two
weeks each time. The purpose of this course
is to provide special expertise in theinvestigation and disposition of cases of tax
evasion, bribery, crimes related to public
security, and various other complex
economic crimes. It also consists of lecturesby experts and senior public prosecutors,
and discussions based on relevant cases.
3. Course for Twelfth- andThirteenth-Year Public
Prosecutors
The number of participants is limited
approximately 15 at one time. It is
conducted once a year for a duration of one
week. The purpose of the course is different
from the other courses. Considering thatthe participants are relatively senior andexperienced, and that they are expected tooccupy a status in the hierarchicalstructure of public prosecutors offices inwhich they will be required to give advice
to junior staff members, the purposes of thecourse are limited to administrative ones,

107TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
UNAFEI PAPER
such as developing knowledge and skills
about personnel management and theadministration of the organization. It
consists of lectures by various individuals
and discussions based on practical cases
involving personnel or administrative
matters.
D. Status (Independence andImpartiality)
Public prosecutors have a status
equivalent to that of judges. They receive
equal salaries according to the length of theterm in office. Their independence andimpartiality are also protected by law.
They are thought to be impartial
representatives of the public interest.
Aside from disciplinary proceedings, theycannot be dismissed from office, suspended
from the performance of their duties orsuffer a reduction in salary against theirwill, with some exceptions.4
Prosecutorial functions are part of theexecutive power vested in the Cabinet5, andthe Cabinet is responsible to the Diet intheir exercise.6 The Minister of Justice
should have the power to supervise publicprosecutors to complete his responsibility
as a member of the Cabinet. However,prosecutorial functions have a quasijudicial nature, inevitably exerting animportant influence on all sectors ofcriminal justice, including the judiciary andthe police. If the functions were controlled
by political influence, then the wholecriminal justice system would be

4

See PPOL Article 25. Exceptions are stipulated in
Articles 22 (retirement), 23 (physical or mental
disability, etc.) and 24 (supernumerary official). The
age of retirement is 63, except the ProsecutorGeneral who retires at 65.
5 The Cabinet consists of the Prime Minister and theMinisters of State. Not less than half of the
Ministers must be chosen from among the membersof the Diet (Constitution, Articles 66 and 68).
6 See Articles 65, 66 and 73 of the Constitution.

j e o p a r d i z e d . To h a r m o n i z e t h e s erequirements, Article 14 of the Public
Prosecutors Office Law provides that “[the]Minister of Justice may control andsupervise public prosecutors generally7 inregard to their functions.... However, inregard to the investigation and dispositionof individual cases, he may control only theProsecutor-General.8” The Minister ofJustice cannot control an individual publicprosecutor directly.
In addition, many public prosecutors are
assigned to key positions in the Ministryof Justice, for example, as Vice-Minister ofJustice and Director-General of the
Criminal Affairs Bureau.
E. Functions and Jurisdiction
The different levels of public prosecutors
offices correspond to a comparable level inthe courts. Consequently publicprosecutors exercise such functions such as
investigation, instituting prosecution,
requesting the proper application of law bycourts, supervising the execution ofjudgement and others which fall under
their jurisdiction (PPOL articles 4 to 6).
When it is necessary for the purpose ofinvestigation, they can carry out theirduties outside their jurisdiction (CCP
article 195).

7“Generally” means, for example, to set up generalguidance for crime prevention, the administrativeinterpretation of laws and how to dispose of affairs
related to prosecution to maintain their uniformity.
8 This control was practiced only once in 1954. Whenpublic prosecutors investigated a big bribery caseinvolving several high-ranking politicians and tried
to arrest the Secretary-General of the majority
party, the Minister of Justice, who belonged to thesame party, ordered the Prosecutor-General to avoid
the arrest, effectively terminating the investigation.
However, since it produced severe criticism fromthe public through the mass media, the Minister ofJustice had to resign quickly.

41

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 53
II. SURVEY OF CHARACTERISTICS
OF THE JAPANESE CRIMINALJUSTICE SYSTEM
A. Characteristics
Before explaining the Japaneseprosecution system, I would like to pointout some characteristics of the Japanesecriminal justice system in order to avoid
any confusion.
(1) Public prosecutors have the authority
to investigate cases referred by thepolice and to initiate investigation
without the police, which, in practice,they often do.
(2) Only public prosecutors may request
a judge to detain suspects, andprosecute suspects. Japan does nothave private prosecution or police
prosecution.
(3) J a p a n c o n d u c t s v i r t u a l l y n oundercover operations or electronic
surveillance.
(4) P u b l i c p r o s e c u t o r s h a v e t h e
discretionary power not to prosecute
even though the evidence is sufficient
to secure a conviction. Many factors
are considered, especially thep o s s i b i l i t y o f t h e s u s p e c t ’s
rehabilitation without formal
punishment.
(5) Japan has no jury or assessor system.
All cases are handled by competentjudges.
(6) Even if a suspect admits his guilt, thecase is brought to trial. Moreover,plea bargaining is unavailable.
(7) Japan has the hearsay rule. However,a judge could admit a written
statement, especially taken by aprosecutor, as evidence under certain
conditions. Therefore prosecutors
often produce written statements
based on an interview with a suspect
or a witness.

42(8) Public prosecutors recommend a
specific sentence (e.g., specific termof imprisonment, specific amount offine, etc.) at the closing statement. Ifthey are not satisfied with a judge’s
decision, whether conviction or
acquittal, they can appeal to a higher
court.
(9) Japan implements the theory of“presumed innocent” until provenguilty. However, since the aquittal
rate is extremely low (below 1
percent)9, if a suspect is indicted, he/she is likely to be regarded as “guilty”
by people in the society.
(10) As mentioned below, the evolution of
the Japanese criminal justice system
is quite unique. It was influenced by
the United States system (especiallyin trial; namely, an adversarial
system) after World War II, but stillretains the influence of the civil law
countries.
B. Historical Background
Japan had been strongly influenced by
the Chinese legal system since the seventh
century. In 1890, Japan enacted the Meiji
Constitution under the influence of the civil
law countries, especially Germany. After its
defeat in World War II, Japan has
implemented the present Constitution
influenced by United States law since 1947
without any change. A number ofprovisions regarding human rights on
criminal matters were introduced to or
strengthened in the Constitution,
specifically, Articles 31 to 40. In short, no
person shall be arrested or searched or
seized without a warrant issued by acompetent judge except in the case of aflagrant offence; be compelled to testify

9

It might be attributable to several elements,
including the discretionary power of publicprosecutors, a n d t h e h i g h p r o b a b i l i t y o f a
confession by defendants.

107TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
UNAFEI PAPER
against himself; and be convicted in cases
where the only proof against him is his own
confession. An accused10 has the right toretain his own counsel.
The Code of Criminal Procedure(hereinafter CCP) was also changed in1949. The CCP was greatly influenced by
the adversarial system, especially in trial,
and adopted the restrictive use of evidence
and the need for a warrant for all kinds ofcompulsory measures.
III. INVESTIGATION
A. Investigative Agencies
Since public prosecutors as well as thepolice are authorized to conduct
investigations (CCP articles 189 and 191),
I will explain the Japanese investigation
procedure as part of prosecutorial
functions. Of course, the police have thefirst and primary responsibility forcriminal investigation. Actually mostcriminal cases (over 99 percent) are
initially investigated by the police andother judicial police officers. Once thepolice investigate a case, they must refer
it to a public prosecutor together with
documents and evidence, even when thepolice believe evidence is insufficient. The
police have no power to finalize cases,
except for two minor types of disposition(see Figure 1).
Public prosecutors may investigate cases
themselves and often do so
supplementarily; that is, they interview
victims and main witnesses directly, andinstruct the police to further collectevidence, if necessary. Moreover, public
10 The Constitution provides the right to retain adefence counsel for the accused, meaning adefendant after indictment, and the Code of
Criminal Procedure provides the same right for asuspect. However, if he cannot hire a defence
counsel, the state will assign a defence counsel only
to an accused, not to a suspect (CCP articles 30 and
36).

prosecutors may initiate and complete
investigation without the police, and often
do so in complicated cases such as briberyor large scale financial crimes involving
politicians, high-ranking government
officials or executives of big enterprises. In
three major cities (Tokyo, Osaka andNagoya11), the public prosecutors offices
established a Special Investigation
Department, where a considerable number
of well-trained and qualified publicprosecutors and assistant officers are
assigned to initiate investigations. Since
April 1996, several districts have a Special
Criminal Affairs Department dealing withwhite collar crimes. If necessary, an ad hoc
investigation unit composed of prosecutors
and assistant officers can be organized.
However, in practice, it may be quitedifficult in many small-scaled offices
because of staff shortages.
B. Investigation Process
1. Outline
Figures 1 and 2 show the outline of theprocess of investigation, prosecution etc.,
for adults.
Since the Japanese system is unlike
some countries where an arrest is aprerequisite for prosecution, the police andpublic prosecutors conduct investigationand prosecution on a voluntary basis as
much as possible. Although investigators
arrest suspects in serious cases, even insuch cases, they collect as muchinformation as possible before arrestingthem and carefully examine the necessityof arrest, considering the suspect’s age andsurroundings, the probability of flight anddestruction of evidence.
11 The Special Investigations Departments in theTokyo and Osaka offices have a long history andhave investigated a number of cases relating tobribery, breach of trust, tax evasion, etc. However,
Nagoya’s department was just established in April
1996.

43

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 53
The procedure after arrest is as follows:(1) When the police arrest a suspect, theymust refer the suspect with
documents and evidence to a publicprosecutor within 48 hours otherwise
they must release him (CCP article
203).
(2) Unless the public prosecutor releases
the suspect or prosecutes the suspect,
the public prosecutor must ask a
judge for a pre-indictment detention
order within 24 hours after receiving
him. (CCP article 205).
(3) The pre-indictment detention period
is 10 days. The public prosecutor may
ask a judge for an extension of thedetention for up to 10 days, if
necessary (CCP article 208).
(4) The public prosecutor must release
the suspect by the termination of thedetention period unless prosecution
is initiated.
2. Arrest
In principle, no one may be arrested
without a warrant issued by a judge.
Enough probable cause must exist to
believe that the suspect committed thealleged offence.
Police officers designated by law12 as wellas public prosecutors are authorized todirectly ask a judge to issue an arrest
warrant. Japan does not recognize the socalled “cognizable offence” that permits thearrest of a suspect without warrant.
However CCP provides two exceptions asfollows:

12 These police officers are designated by the National

or Prefectural Public Safety Commission and are
ranked at or above Police Inspector, which is thethird rank from the bottom (CCP article 199. 2).

44(1) Flagrant Offence (CCP articles 212
to 214):
Any person may arrest, without awarrant, an offender who iscommitting or has just committed an
offence; or(2) Emergency Arrest (CCP article 210):“When there are sufficient grounds
to suspect the commission of an
offence punishable by the death
penalty, or imprisonment for life or
for a maximum period of three years
or more, and if, in addition, becauseof great urgency a warrant of arrest
cannot be obtained beforehand froma judge, a public prosecutor, a publicprosecutor’s assistant officer or a
judicial police official may, uponstatement of the reasons therefore,
apprehend the suspect.” In this case,the procedure for obtaining an arrest
warrant from a judge shall be taken
immediately thereafter. If thewarrant is not issued, the suspect
must be released at once.
After receiving the suspect, the publicprosecutor must immediately inform himof the alleged offence and the right to hirea defence counsel, as well as give thesuspect an opportunity for explanation.
This is a public prosecutor’s first and mostimportant interview with a suspect because
he learns the suspect’s viewpoint. Theinterview is also important for a suspect
because he can observe how much the
public prosecutor knows about the facts or
how confident he is in proving the casethrough his words and attitude. If thesuspect presumes the public prosecutor haspoor knowledge about the case, the suspect
is not likely to confess.
3. Pre-indictment Detention
The public prosecutor must proceed to
the next step as above-mentioned in section
B. 1. b. If a public prosecutor arrests asuspect, the same procedure must be107TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
UNAFEI PAPER
followed within 48 hours after the arrest(CCP article 204).
The power to ask a judge for a detention
order is vested only in a public prosecutor.
The judge asked for the detention orderreviews all documents and evidence, andinterviews the suspect to afford him theopportunity to explain the alleged case.
The judge may order the suspect’s
detention for 10 days if there arereasonable grounds to believe that thesuspect has committed the offence, and(1) the suspect has no fixed dwelling;(2) there are reasonable grounds tobelieve that the suspect may destroy
evidence;or(3) there are reasonable grounds tobelieve that he may attempt toescape.
Otherwise, the judge must dismiss theapplication. (CCP articles 60, 207 and 208).
In practice, it is granted for the most partsince the police and public prosecutors
carefully screen suspects to be arrested ordetained (see Table 1).
When an extension of detention isrequested, a judge examines all the
documents and evidence without
interviewing the suspect. Then thedetention can be extended up to 10 days,
including weekends and national holidays.
A suspect’s maximum term of custody
before indictment is consequently 23
days13. By the termination of the detention
term, a public prosecutor should decide
whether to prosecute or release the suspect.
The power to prosecute is vested only in a
public prosecutor with one exception 14.
During the detention period, no suspect is

13 CCP Article 208-2 provides a further 5-day

extension for the crimes related to insurrection.
However its use is extremely exceptional and rare.
14 See section IV. 2, Exception to the Monopolizationof Prosecution: Quasi-Prosecution.

entitled to bail, but he may be bailable after
indictment (CCP article 88).
Furthermore, a suspect is usuallydetained in a police jail substituted for adetention house 15 during the abovementioned period even after referral to a
public prosecutor. CCP Article 198 isinterpreted that a suspect under arrest/
detention is obligated to appear before an
investigation official to be questioned whenrequested. In the Japanese system, thepolice and public prosecutors are expected
to find truth by interrogating a suspect,showing him parts of evidence, etc.
Detention houses in Japan are located in
the suburbs and insufficient to facilitatesuch needs. Accordingly, a judge permits asuspect to be detained in a police jail during
a detention period.
4. Relation between the Policeand Public Prosecutors
Investigation is defined as the wholeprocess of identifying an offender andcollecting evidence in order to prosecutehim when a crime is deemed to haveoccurred. Since prosecution does not
terminate until the case is finalized at thetrial stage, investigation may be needed
until then. Accordingly, the police continue
investigating even after referring a case to
the public prosecutors office. Since thepolice and public prosecutors arerespectively independent organizations,the relationship between both is basicallycooperative. Public prosecutors may
instruct the police and let the police assist
in their investigation, and the police are
required to follow the instructions by law(CCP article 193). Some police officers do
not want to admit that public prosecutors
h a v e s u c h p o w e r, e s p e c i a l l y i ninvestigations initiated by the police.
Rather they interpret such instructions arerequests which the police kindly accept.

15 Prison Law Article 1, paragraph 3.

45

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 53
Regardless of the different interpretationsof Article 193, public prosecutors
monopolize the power to request adetention order from a judge and toprosecute. The police, nonetheless, follow
public prosecutors’ instructions to
successfully complete their work.
In some difficult and complicated cases,
the detention term is not enough to collectsufficient evidence to decide whether toindict, since the criteria for indictment is
actually the same as “beyond a reasonable
doubt” of a trial. Thus, the police and publicprosecutors should work together quickly
and efficiently. Accordingly, in a murdercase, the police immediately inform a publicprosecutor. Then the prosecutor to be
assigned to the case usually goes to thecrime site and the place where the corpse
is located, and observes the autopsy by adesignated doctor. The prosecutor candirectly discuss with the police how toinvestigate the case, what problems exist,
and what kinds of evidence are at the crimesite.
5. Collection of Evidence
Unlike the U.S. and some othercountries, undercover operations are notallowed in Japan. Although it is said that
undercover operations can be used in theinvestigation of crimes related to drug and
gun trafficking, it is still unpopular,
because Japanese society perceives suchmethods as unfair and deceitful. Typicalinvestigative measures include scientificinvestigations, such as examination ofblood, fingerprints, hair, voice andhandwriting, which are fully utilized for
identifying the suspect.
Unlike the common law countries,“evidence” in Japan sometimes means not
only real evidence but written statements
taken by investigators unless thedifferences between both are intentionallystressed. Although investigators collect asmuch real evidence as possible, it isindispensable to collect witness statements

46

explaining the meaning of such real
evidence in order to find the truth. Written
statements are made in the following way:
Investigators interview a witness or asuspect, then they prepare a written
statement based on what he said. Afterthe investigators precisely read thestatement to him and he agrees with thecontent, he is requested to sign on the line
after the last sentence to guarantee thevoluntariness and veracity of thestatement.
Public prosecutors often take such
written statements of the main witnesses.
Of course, any statement untested by crossexamination is inadmissible as evidence intrial. However, CCP Article 321.1.2
provides that a written statement taken bya public prosecutor is admissible asevidence when:(1) the witness does not appear or testify
on the date for public trial because ofdeath, unsoundness of mental
condition, is missing or staying
outside Japan; or(2) the witness, appearing on the date,testifies contrarily to or materiallydifferent from his previous statement
contained in the document.
In the latter case, this shall apply when
the court finds that special circumstances
exist in which the previous statement ismore credible than the present testimony16.
There is stronger likelihood that it will be
admissible as evidence as compared to astatement taken by the police (Id. section
3). That is why public prosecutors often
make such written statements. Even when
the written statements made by both thepolice and public prosecutors may
inadmissible as evidence, they might beused for determining the credibility of thetestimony (CCP article 328).
16

For example, rape victims, or both victims andwitnesses of an offence committed by an organizedcrime group.

107TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
UNAFEI PAPER
Regarding a suspect’s written statement
made in the same way as above-mentioned,
if it, regardless of the source, contains a
confession or an admission of facts adverse
to his interest, it is admissible as long as
made voluntarily (CCP article 322). The
suspect does not have the right to be withhis lawyer during interrogation. Of course,
he has the right to remain silent and to see
and consult his counsel at any time.
6. Reasons of Public Prosecutors’
Investigative Authority
Some participants, especially those fromthe common law countries where the police
have the power of both investigation andprosecution, might not understand thewide power granted to Japanese publicprosecutors. However, each criminal
justice system is rooted in its society andhistory. Possible reasons are as follows:a) Theoretical Reason
Public prosecutors should know how toinvestigate because they have to know how
to prove cases beyond a reasonable doubt
in trial. The main reason for theinvestigative authority of publicprosecutors is to lead them to correct
decisions and check on police
investigations. If public prosecutors could
not interview witnesses or collect evidence
independently, they would have to rely on
the police investigation (which is a sort ofhearsay for public prosecutors) entirely andcould not overcome any problems which
may arise during by the police
investigation. In the Japanese system, thepolice investigation is strictly and carefully
checked by public prosecutors, who havethe same qualifications as judges. The
check is expected to be almost the same asthat by judges. This is a significant
safeguard for protecting the rights of asuspect since the Japanese police cannot
prosecute, and it would be difficult for themto realize fully what would happen in trial
and what evidence should be collected forconviction. Thus, the Japanese system
avoids subjecting a suspect, who is likely
to be acquitted, to a long detention and trial
by releasing him at an earlier stage.
Consequently, this system deeply respects
a suspect’s human rights.
b) Historical and Practical
ReasonAlthough public prosecutors offices were
established in 1872, public prosecutors did
not originally have the power to investigate
crimes independently. Since a preliminary
inquiry proceeding17 was available at thattime, public prosecutors either directly
brought a case to trial or asked for apreliminary inquiry proceeding. A court
precedent in those days denied theadmissibility of a suspect’s written
statement taken by a public prosecutor
regarding a case where the police arresteda suspect based on an arrest warrant.
Under such system, in 1896, the ratios ofprosecution, dismissal rate18 and acquittal
rate were 80 percent, 44 percent and 7
percent respectively. Gradually theinvestigative practice was established since
the people wanted to avoid prosecuting asuspect without sufficient evidence tosupport his conviction. The effort was
successful, and in 1921 the ratios ofprosecution, dismissal rate and acquittal
rate lowered to 31 percent, 5 percent and
17 In this system, an examining judge investigated acase to decide whether a particular suspect under
the jurisdiction of the District Court should beformally tried.
18 Under the previous system, if an examining judge
found in the course of preliminary inquiry
proceeding that the suspect should not be formallytried, he would finalize the case by “dismissal”.
Since the system of preliminary inquiry proceedings
no longer exists in Japan, the word “dismissal” nowmeans the dismissal of a case after brought to trial.
19 These statistics are quoted from “Textbook ofProsecution” issued by the Ministry of Justice(Japanese version), p. 7.

47

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 53
1.6 percent respectively19. Subsequently,
public prosecutors’ investigative authority
was codified by law. Thus, this practicecontinues to the present, with publicprosecutors, as well as the police and otherlaw enforcement agencies, conducting fullinvestigations and strict screening of cases,
thereby receiving strong public support.
Good or bad, Japanese society has atendency to regard a person as an actual
offender even if only arrested, and much
more so if prosecuted. Therefore, from arehabilitative viewpoint, suchinvestigations are highly encouraged.
Additionally, the decrease the caseload of
the courts and the entire criminal justicesystem.
IV. DISPOSITION OF CASES
A. Initiation of Prosecution
There are two main forms of prosecution:formal and summary. If the case is serious
and the suspect deserves a penalty of
imprisonment or death, the prosecutor
indicts the suspect for formal trial even if
he admits his guilt. The prosecutor utilizes
summary procedure when the suspectdeserves a fine not exceeding ¥500,000,
admits his guilt and accepts a monetary
sentence. In general, minor offenses, suchas traffic violations or bodily injury throughprofessional negligence, are dealt withthrough this system. However, in cases
where a suspect accused of assault or bodily
injury confesses and compensates thevictims’ damage, summary procedure isalso utilized.
To indict, a public prosecutor must
submit a bill of indictment to the court,
identifying the defendant (usually byshowing the permanent domicile andpresent address, his name and date ofbirth), showing the offence charged and thefacts constituting such offence (CCP article
256). [See an example bill of indictment(translated into English) in Appendix.] Anarrest warrant, a pre-indictment detention

48

order and a document signed by the suspect
identifying his defense counsel areattached to a bill of indictment to makeclear the past procedure. The submissionof documentary or real evidence isprohibited at this stage, unlike the Chinesesystem.
If the suspect had been detained alreadywhen indicted, the pre-indictment
detention automatically becomes an afterindictment detention limited to twomonths. After these two months, thedetention term may be extended every
month, as required.
After indictment, the suspect’s situation
changes due to adopting the adversary
concept. The suspect should be detainedin a detention house and interrogation
regarding the indicted fact is prohibited inprinciple. He may now be bailable.
B. Monopolization of Prosecution
1. Principle
As stated previously, public prosecutors
have the exclusive power to decide whether
to prosecute (CCP article 247). Japan does
not have a system of private or police
prosecution; nor a grand jury or
preliminary hearing system conducted byjudges. In other words, the court cannot
recognize any crime unless publicprosecutors prosecute. This system iscalled “monopolization of prosecution,”
which is supported by the public becauseof the successful efforts by publicprosecutors mentioned in section III. B. 6.
2. Exception to the
Monopolization of Prosecution
The sole exception is called the system
of “Analogical Institution of Prosecution
through Judicial Action” or “QuasiProsecution” (CCP articles 262 to 269).
This system purports to protect the parties
injured by crimes involving abuse of
authority by public officials. A person, who
has made a complaint or accusation and is107TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
UNAFEI PAPER
not satisfied with the public prosecutor’s
decision not to prosecute, may apply to thecourt to order the case to be tried. The
court, after conducting hearings, must
either dismiss the application, or order thecase to be tried if well-founded. If theapplication is granted, then a practicing
lawyer is appointed by the court to exercise
the functions of the public prosecutor.
C. Non-prosecution
1. Insufficiency of Evidence
It is natural for public prosecutors not
to prosecute a suspect without sufficientevidence. The standard for whether toprosecute based on “probable cause”,“beyond a reasonable doubt” or otherstandards, differs from country to country.
Japanese laws do not clearly mention it.
However, there exists a burden of proof tobe met by public prosecutors, and one ofthe public prosecutors’ functions is torequest the proper application of the law
by the court. To abide by the laws sincerely,
the standard should be the same as that of
the court, that is, “beyond a reasonable
doubt.” In practice, public prosecutors
decide non-prosecution based on
insufficiency of the evidence under thiscriterion.
2. Suspension of Prosecution
One of the most unique characteristics
of Japanese criminal procedure is thatpublic prosecutors can drop cases evenwhen there is enough evidence to secure aconviction. This is called “Suspension ofProsecution.” Thus, this wide discretionary
power granted to public prosecutors has asignificant role in encouraging suspects’
rehabilitation.
The concept of discretionary prosecution
contrasts with that of compulsory
prosecution. The latter concept requiresthat prosecution always be instituted if
there are some objective grounds for belief
that the crime has been committed by thesuspect and if the prerequisites forprosecution exist. This prevents arbitrary
decisions by public prosecutors andvagaries in the administration of criminal
justice. On the other hand, the system of
discretionary prosecution is advantageous
in disposing of cases flexibly according to
the seriousness of individual offenses andthe criminal tendency of each suspect andin giving them the chance to rehabilitate
themselves in the society.
a) Application of suspension ofprosecution
N e e d l e s s t o s a y, i n p r a c t i c i n g
discretionary prosecution, arbitrarinessshould be avoided above all. Adhering to
CCP Article 248, public prosecutors must
consider the following factors concerning
the suspect and the crime:(1) The offender ’s character, age,situation, etc. Generally, youths or
the aged, having no or little previous
criminal record, or having had
difficult a childhood may be
advantageous factors for offenders;(2) The gravity of the offence;(3) The circumstances under which theoffence was committed. For example,
the motivation for the offence, andwhether or not and to what extent thevictim had fault in provoking theoffence; and(4) Conditions subsequent to thecommission of the offence. For
example, whether or not and to what
extent compensation for damages ismade; the victim’s feelings are
remedied; settlements between bothparties; the influence to the society;and whether or not the offenderrepents commission of the offence.
The most important factors for
suspension of prosecution arecompensation and the remedy of thevictim’s feelings. Thus, a suspect’s family,
employer and private attorney always try

49

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 53
to compensate as much as possible to avoid
indictment.
Table 2 breaks down non-prosecution byjustification. The most common reason is“suspension of prosecution”, constituting
nearly 80 percent, followed by “lack or
insufficiency of evidence,” ranging from 14
to 15 percent. Table 3 reflects that around
one-third of all offenses (excluding roadtraffic violations) are disposed of bysuspension of prosecution: 32.7 percent in
1993, 34.6 percent in 1994, and 37.0
percent in 1995. Of course, in major
offenses such as homicide, robbery, rape orarson, the ratio is much lower than lessserious offenses.
b) Historical perspective
Reviewing the historical development of
the system, there is little doubt thatoriginally the impetus for this practicederived from the overburdening of thecriminal justice system attributable to theconfusion after the Meiji Restoration.
Although this system started around 1884,
the practice was not endorsed legislatively
until 1922. Originally, the practice wascommenced mainly for the purpose of
reducing criminal cases, particularly trivial
ones, for being brought before courts andthereby saving the costs of trial proceedings
as well as housing prisoners, including
those awaiting trial. Indeed the careful use
of time and expense at the trial stage wasregarded as an important factor in theefficient functioning of the criminal courts
and other institutions, including the publicprosecutors offices.
However, had it not been for theunderlying policy oriented to therehabilitation of offenders rather than thenecessity of satisfying such needs asadministrative efficiency and economy, thepractice could have hardly survived theprofessional criticism and the public fear
prevailing then. The government justified
the practice by asserting that the purposeof punishment was not only to deter the50

public by showing the authority of law, butalso to make the offender repent his
criminal conduct and recognize that heshould refrain from committing anotheroffence. Therefore, prosecution should beinstituted only when such purposes could
not be attained without resorting tocriminal sanctions. The practice ofsuspension of prosecution was consideredan effective measure not only of expediting
the processing of criminal cases, but alsoof facilitating the rehabilitation offenders.
In addition, the amended “Offenders
Rehabilitation Law 20 ” provides that aperson who has not been prosecuted
because of lack of its necessity could, if heapplied in an emergency case, getrehabilitation aid services such asaccommodations and food at rehabilitation
hostels during the six months after releasefrom arrest or detention. Publicprosecutors are expected to inspire asuspect to utilize this service for his smoothrehabilitation.
B. Restraints on the Prosecution
SystemAny use of discretion by a prosecutor isaccompanied by a risk of abuse. In orderto prevent an erroneous or arbitrary
exercise of discretion, there are several
systems of checks in Japan. The first works
as a self-check system. If the prosecutor
still makes an arbitrary decision, there are
two additional restrictions: (1) inquest ofprosecution and (2) analogical (or quasi)
institution of prosecution.
1. Internal Restrictions
In Japan, each public prosecutor is fullycompetent to perform his prosecutorial
duties. It can be said that each prosecutor

20 The effective date of the amended Law is April 1,

1996. However, the same provision was stipulated
in the “Law for Aftercare of Discharged Offenders”,
which was abolished on the same day.

107TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
UNAFEI PAPER
constitutes a single administrative agency.
On the other hand, being subject to thecontrol and supervision of senior publicprosecutors, their approval is required in
making prosecutorial decisions. It isevident that prosecutors themselves areaware that they may easily fall into selfrighteousness, leading to arbitrarydispositions, whether intentionally orunintentionally. It is sometimes very
useful, for especially young andinexperienced prosecutors, to consult asenior to discuss the best disposition of acase. Accordingly, the public prosecutors
offices have developed some procedures formaking their decisions more objective:(1) a prosecutor, whenever refraining
from instituting a prosecution, mustshow his reasons in writing; and(2) a prosecutor must obtain approval
from his senior, who in turn is careful
to examine whether his decision iswell grounded.
2. Inquest of Prosecution(Prosecution Review
Commission)
This system’s purpose is to maintain theproper exercise of the public prosecutors’
power by subjecting it to popular review.
The Inquest Committee consists of 11
members selected from among persons
eligible to vote for members of the Houseof Representatives of the Diet. It isempowered to examine the propriety ofdecisions by public prosecutors not toinstitute prosecution. The Inquest
Committee must conduct an investigation
whenever it receives an investigation
request from an injured party or a person
authorized to make a complaint or
accusation. In some instances, theCommittee can carry out investigations on
its own initiative, and is competent toexamine witnesses in the course of theinvestigation.
The Committee then notifies the Chief
Prosecutor of the District Public

Prosecutors Office of its conclusion. If the
non-prosecution is concluded improper by
the Committee, the Chief Prosecutor orders
a public prosecutor of the office to further
investigate of the case and to re-examine
the original disposition. After the reinvestigation and re-examination, thepublic prosecutor in charge must ask forthe approval of the Superintendent
Prosecutor before making the final
disposition.
Although the Committee’s verdict is notbinding upon the prosecutor, it is highly
respected in the re-investigation process.
Since Japan does not have a jury systemand private prosecution system, “inquestof prosecution” allows the public toparticipate in criminal justiceadministration. There is a Committee ineach district court.
3. “Analogical Institution ofProsecution through Judicial
Action” or “Quasi-Prosecution”(supra VI. B. 2.)
V. PUBLIC PROSECUTORS AT
THE TRIAL STAGE
A. Outline of a Japanese Trial
Japan does not have a jury trial21 andguilty plea system. All the cases prosecuted
are examined by competent judges. Evencases where the suspects or defendants
have confessed and admitted their guilt arebrought to trial, if they are deemed todeserve imprisonment. A “trial” in Japan
encompasses both the determination of
guilt stage and the sentencing phase.
21 The Jury Trial Law was enforced from 1923 to 1943.

Under the Law, a defendant had the right to choose
either a jury trial or a trial handled by competentjudges. However, defendants seldom chose a jury
trial. Possible reasons considered are that
defendants bore the cost, an appeal was prohibitedand the poor credibility of the jury trial. The law
has been suspended since 1943.

51

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 53
Public prosecutors bear the burden ofproving the defendant guilty “beyond areasonable doubt” in all cases. They must
establish the existence of an offence, theoffender’s identify, his sanity, criminal
intent or negligence, the voluntariness of
his confession at the investigative stage,etc. Although a Japanese trial is held
infrequently, for instance once or twice amonth, the defendants who admit their
guilt usually consent to the use of
documents (such as written statements) as
evidence, which simplifies and accelerates
the trial process. Thus approximately 90
percent of all the cases brought to trial arecompleted within six months in the first
instance. There are only some specificcases which have been on trial for several
years. However, generally speaking, Japan
does not suffer from serious delays in the
courts.
B. Preparation for Trial
After indictment, public prosecutors incharge of a trial have to plan how to provethe case by selecting documentary or real
evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable
doubt. In large public prosecutors offices,since public prosecutors in charge of trial
are separated from the public prosecutor
who indited the case, the former have tocarefully read and examine all the
documents and evidence. If they feel thenecessity to further collect evidence, they
do it themselves or request the publicprosecutor or the police officers who
investigated the case to do it.
To facilitate speedy trial, publicprosecutors are likely to select the best
documentary or real evidence. Then theymust give the defense counsel anopportunity to inspect the selected
documentary or real evidence prior to thetrial (CCP article 299). Discovery islimited to the documentary or real evidence
that the public prosecutor intends to use
in trial. If the defense counsel wants toinspect other documents or evidence, he

52

may make a request before the court to getan order for discovery under certain
conditions.
In complicated cases or serious cases,
defence counsels, judges and publicprosecutors have a preparatory meeting inorder for the trial to proceed smoothly.
Since the judges are fact-finders, unlike ajury system, they have only the indictment
sheet, the arrest warrant and the detention
order before the start of trial. They mustnot be informed of the contents of
documentary or real evidence on any
occasion other than the trial. Accordingly,
in such a preparatory meeting, they discuss
only court proceedings like the estimatednumber and duration of testimonies, notthe content of evidence.
C. Trial Activities: Testimony
Usually written statements of witnesses
are made by police officers and/or publicprosecutors at the investigation stage. If
not, the public prosecutor in charge of trial
interviews the witnesses and takes theirwritten statements before requesting thetestimony of the witnesses. The publicprosecutor usually requests the court toadmit the written statements as evidence.
Since most documentary evidence
constitutes hearsay and cannot be
admitted, only items of evidence whose
introduction the defense accepts can be
examined. When the defense disagrees tothe introduction of documentary evidence,the public prosecutor may request the court
to examine witnesses and/or the
defendant(s) instead. If such request is
granted, the court then determines whowill be examined.
A few days before the testimony, thepublic prosecutor again interviews thewitnesses to ensure their appearance on
the trial date and how they are going totestify. Since Japanese trials are held
infrequently, witnesses are sometimes
required to appear before the court several
times in seriously contested cases.

107TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
UNAFEI PAPER
Consequently, in cases where many
witnesses are required to testify, the trial
may continue for several years. If thewitnesses do not appear before the court
after several requests, they are detainedin order to testify at trial. If they refuse totestify, their written statements may be
examined at trial (CCP article 321).
Moreover, if the witnesses’ testimony
contradicts a prior statement, the written
statement can also be used to reduce thecredibility of their testimony, that is,
impeachment (CCP article 328).
After completing the examination ofevidence and witnesses for fact-finding, thedefendant is usually questioned by hiscounsel, the public prosecutor and judges
at trial. The defendant may rebut theprosecution’s evidence or show howrepentant he is and how he will rehabilitatein the future. At this stage, the evidence
relating to his environmental surroundings(such as criminal records, background,p e r s o n a l i t y, e t c . ) i s e x a m i n e d f o rdetermining sentence.
D. Closing Statement at the Trial
CCP Article 293 provides that “after theexamination of evidence has been
completed, the public prosecutor shall state
the opinion regarding the facts and theapplication of the law.” Also it has been along-standing practice in Japan, as well as
in some European countries, for the publicprosecutor at that time to express his
opinion as to the appropriate specificpenalty to be imposed upon the defendant.
The public prosecutor has discretionary
power in selecting from among a variety ofsanctions provided by law. Nevertheless,recommendations tend to be uniform
because of the public prosecutor ’s
subordination to the general direction of
the Prosecutor-General, who is mindful of
public opinion and issues directives fromtime to time. Throughout the country, asimilar recommendation is suggested forsimilar cases. This recommendation of a

specific penalty is initially determined by
the public prosecutor who indicted the case.
Of course, it can be changed according to
the different situation after indictment bya public prosecutor in charge of the trial.
Although such a recommendation does notbind judges, they give serious consideration
to the recommended penalty. If the publicprosecutor feels that the sentence isinadequate, he can appeal the sentence. As
a result, disparities in sentencing areprevented.
Whether to recommend a suspension of
execution of sentence is occasionallydiscussed among prosecutors, especially incases where even prosecutors presume thatthe defendant can rehabilitate himself inthe community. One opinion favors publicprosecutors making such recommendations
because they are representatives of the
public interest, which includes the interestof the defendant. The opposing opinion isthat such duties should be assumed by adefendant’s counsel or the judges. In fact,
most prosecutors do not recommend asuspension of execution of sentence.
Moreover, they sometimes stress that theexecution of sentence should not besuspended when they strongly believe thata defendant should be imprisoned.

53

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 53
Figure 1
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS FOR ADULT OFFENDERS

Offence

Identification

Administative
fine fortraffic infraction(Police, etc.)

Referral to
public prosecutor
Investigation
initiated bypublic prosecutor,
etc.

Disposition of trivial cases

New Reception

PublicProsecutors
OfficeNon-prosecution

Prosecution
New Reception•Fine•Minor fine

Summary
Proceedings

Acquittal, etc.
Formal Trial(Count)Fine, etc.

Suspension of execution of sentence
Imprisonment

Protective measures (Hodoshobun)

Provisional
release(1) Suspension of execution ofsentence with probationary
supervision.
(2) Release on expiry of full prison
term.
(3) Release on expiry of term ofprotective measures.

(2)

Release onparole(Prison)Admission
Women’s
GuidanceHome

Detention
in a work house(1)

Admission

Release on parole(3)

New Reception(Probation Office)Release on expiryof term of
probation andparole

Revocation, etc.

Source: Summary of the White Paper on Crime 1996, Research and Training Institute, Ministry of Justice,
Government of Japan, p. 56. (Slight modifications)54

107TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
UNAFEI PAPER
Figure 2
INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE
Offenses

Investigation
by Prosecutors

Investigation
by Police

Not Arrested

Not Arrested

Arrested by
PoliceReleased by
PoliceArrested by
Prosecutors(48 hours)

Referred toProsecutors

Referred toProsecutors(Arrestee)

Released by
Prosecutors(48 hours)

Released by
Prosecutors(24 hours)

Petty Offenses
Designated by
Prosecutors

Request for
Pre-indictment
Detention Order
to Judge

Monthly Reportto Prosecutors

Interviewed
by Judge

Released

Detained(10 days)(10 days)

Prosecutors Decision

Prosecution
Non-prosecution

Note:

Trial
Summary (for Monetary Sentence)
Suspension of Prosecution
Insufficiency of Evidence
Etc.

The dark line indicates the most common procedure.

55

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 53
Table 1
ARRESTEES AND DETAINEES AMONG SUSPECTS WHOSE CASES WEREDISPOSED OF BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTORS OFFICERS,BY OFFENCE (1995)
Number of Suspects Arrested/Not Arrested
Total

Offence(A)

Arrested Arrested Arrested
and
by
and
Not
referred public released arrested
by police prosecutor by police
(B)
(C)

(B+C)
A

Request for Detention
Granted Denied D+E
B+C

(%)

(D)

(E)

(%)

Total

335,554

95,310350

5,978

233,91628.5

87,05898

91.1

Penal Code offences
Homicide
Robbery
Bodily injury
Extortion
Larceny
Rape
Others

243,266
1,875
2,156
24,163
9,197
126,357
1,428
78,09062,628946
1,512
10,7194,151
24,533
1,063
19,704

225
4
19
7
38
1
156

4,717
11
22
666
87
1,712
5
2,214

175,696
914
622
12,7594,952
100,074359
56,016

25.8
50.7
70.1
44.4
45.2
19.4
74.5
25.4

57,088
948
1,427
9,361
3,796
22,524
1,039
17,993

65
9
2
18
36

90.9
99.8
94.4
87.3
91.3
91.7
97.7
90.8

Special Law offences
Firearms and swords
Stimulant drugs
Others

92,288
4,170
24,10264,01632,682
2,028
16,206
14,453

125
5
19
101

1,261
222
77
962

58,2201,920
7,800
48,500

35.5
48.6
67.3
22.7

29,9701,525
16,067
12,378

33
5
5
23

91.5
75.4
99.1
85.2

Notes: 1. Traffic Professional Negligence and Road Traffic violations are not included.
2. Cases such as those resumed after suspension of the period of limitaiton, transferred to anotherpublic prosecutors offices, or involving juridical persons are not included.
3. The number of suspects not arrested includes those arrested for other offences.
Source: Annual Report of Statistics on Prosecution. Quoted in Summary of the White Paper on Crime 1996,
Research and Training Institute, Ministry of Justice, Government of Japan, p. 58.

Table 2SUSPECTS NOT PROSECUTED, BY REASON (1991-1995)
Suspension ofProsecution

Lack orInsufficiency
of Evidence

Non-existenceof Valid
Complaint

Lack ofMentalCapacity

Number%Number%Number%Number%Number

%58,25056,531
63,08260,52362,041

78.7
79.2
79.1
78.3
78.7

10,658
10,161
11,631
11,787
11,329

14.4
14.2
14.6
15.2
14.4

1,826
1,746
1,854
1,921
2,164

2.5
2.4
2.3
2.5
2.7

430
404
494
436
457

0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6

2,848
2,562
2,694
2,635
2,871

3.8
3.6
3.4
3.4
3.6

Year

Total

1991
1992
1993
1994
1995

74,012
71,40479,75577,302
78,862

Note:

Traffic Professional Negligence and Road Traffic violations are not included.

Others

Source: Annual Report of Statistics on Prosecution. Quoted in Summary of the White Paper on Crime 1996,
Research and Training Institute, Ministry of Justice, Government of Japan, p. 60.

56

107TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
UNAFEI PAPER
Table 3RATE OF PROSECUTION AND SUSPENDED PROSECUTION,
BY OFFENCE (1993-1995)
Offence

1993
1994
1995
Prosecution Suspension Prosecution Suspension Prosecution Suspension
Rate
Rate
Rate
Rate
Rate
Rate

Total

66.0

32.7

64.1

34.6

61.7

37.0

Penal Code offences(excluding traffic
professional regigence)
Homicide
Robbery
Bodily Injury
Extortion
Larceny
Fraud
Embezzlement
Rape
Indecent Assault
Arson
Bribery
Gambling
Violent acts
Traffic Professional
Negligence

54.3

38.5

55.0

38.3

55.3

37.9

35.4
80.1
71.0
55.4
54.4
59.6
18.2
66.6
48.2
59.4
73.2
52.8
70.1
16.4

6.7
6.0
26.0
36.6
41.9
32.0
80.1
12.7
16.8
13.2
22.4
46.6
25.7
83.2

39.3
81.0
70.5
55.2
54.9
62.0
16.5
66.7
48.0
62.3
71.7
58.2
69.4
15.7

5.1
5.4
26.4
36.6
41.4
29.5
82.1
12.9
16.0
15.2
22.6
40.7
26.3
83.8

43.8
80.6
72.8
59.5
54.9
62.2
13.9
67.3
47.5
60.6
67.0
64.0
71.3
15.0

4.3
6.5
24.1
33.8
41.3
29.6
85.0
13.7
14.3
14.2
22.9
35.5
24.9
84.6

68.6

28.1

70.7

25.8

70.6

26.4

45.0

54.2

43.2

49.8

48.7

50.6

65.7
85.2
91.8
95.0

28.8
7.9
6.8
4.6

63.8
85.8
91.6
93.7

31.1
7.3
6.8
5.9

62.5
87.5
92.9
93.7

32.3
6.6
6.3
5.9

number of suspects granted suspension

× 100

Special Law offences(excluding road traffic
violations)Public Offices Election
Law
Firearms and Swords
Stimulant Drugs
Poisonous Agents
Road Traffic Violations
Note:

Suspension rate =number of suspects prosecuted and granted suspension

Source: Annual Report of Statistics on Prosecution. Quoted in Summary of the White Paper on Crime 1996,
Research and Training Institute, Ministry of Justice, Government of Japan, p. 59.

57

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 53
APPENDIXSAMPLE OF INDICTMENT
Bill of Indictment
March 15, 1993
To: Tokyo District Court
A public action is hereby instituted in the following case.
Tokyo District Public Prosecutors OfficePublic Prosecutor, KONO Ichiro (his seal)

Defendant
Permanent Domicile:

Yoshida 823, Mizumaki-cho, Onga-gun, Fukuoka Prefecture

Present Address:

Room Number 303 of the dormitory of the Pachinko Parlor
named “New Metro”, Ebisu 2-4-7, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo

Occupation:

None

Name:

YAMADA, Taro

Date of Birth:

April 6, 1947

Status:Under detention

Fact Constituting the Offense Charged
At around 11 p.m., on February 22, 1993, the defendant stuck a knife (its edge isabout 10 centimeters long) into the chest (left side) of Akio Mori (24 years of age) with
the intent to murder on a street located in Ebisu 2-4-7, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo. The victim’s
death resulted from blood loss attributable to the stab wound in the chest at around
11:58 on the same day at YAMADA Hospital located in Komaba 3-1-23, Meguro-ku,
Tokyo.

Charge and Applicable Law
Murder58

Penal Code Article 199