Judgments of the Supreme Court

Search Results

2019 (A) 1987

Date of the judgment (decision)

2020.01.31

Case Number

2019 (A) 1987

Reporter

Keishu Vol. 74, No. 1

Title

Judgment concerning the case in which the Court ruled that the final appellate court is not required to hold an oral argument in order to quash the judgment in prior instance

Case name

Case charged for obstruction of performance of public duty

Result

Judgment of the Third Petty Bench, quashed and remanded

Court of the Prior Instance

Tokyo High Court, Judgment of November 8, 2019

Summary of the judgment (decision)

In view of the circumstances of the case including the nature of the reason for quashing the judgment in prior instance due to the illegality thereof in that the judge who had not participated in the trial proceedings in the prior instance participated in judgment in the prior instance, the details of the charged case, and the developments in the proceedings, the final appellate court is not necessarily required to hold an oral argument in order to quash the judgment in prior instance.

References

Article 411, item (i), Article 43, paragraph (1), and Article 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Articles 54 and 55 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure



Code of Criminal Procedure

Article 411, item (i)

Even in absence of grounds as prescribed in the items of Article 405, the final appellate court may render a judgment to reverse the judgment of the court of first or second instance, on any of the following grounds when it deems that not doing so would clearly be contrary to justice:

(i) There is a violation of laws and regulations which would have affected the judgment.

Article 43, paragraph (1)

(1) Except as otherwise provided for in this Code, judgments must be rendered on the basis of oral arguments.

Article 408

The final appellate court may enter a judgment to dismiss the final appeal without hearing oral arguments when it is deemed to be clear that there are no grounds for a final appeal in the statement of the reasons for appeal or other documents.

Rules of Criminal Procedure

(Preparer of Written Judicial Decisions)

Article 54 Written judicial decisions shall be prepared by a judge.

(Affixation of Signature and Seal to a Written Judicial Decision)

Article 55 The judge(s) who issues a judicial decision shall affix his/her signature and seal to the written judicial decision. When the presiding judge is unable to affix his/her signature and seal to the written judicial decision, one of the other judges shall affix his/her signature and seal thereto and indicate the grounds therefor in a supplementary note, and when another judge is unable to affix his/her signature and seal to the written judicial decision, the presiding judge shall affix his/her signature and seal thereto and indicate the grounds therefor in a supplementary note.

Main text of the judgment (decision)

The judgment in prior instance is quashed.

The case is remanded to the Tokyo High Court.

Reasons

As a result of the Court's examination by its own authority, it is found from the case records that the judge who had not participated in the trial proceedings in the prior instance affixed his or her signature and seal to the written judgment in prior instance. This means that a judge who had not participated in the trial proceedings in the prior instance participated in issuing a judgment in the prior instance. This constitutes a violation of laws and regulations that would have affected the judgment, and it is found that it would be extremely unjust if the judgment in prior instance were not quashed. Consequently, it is appropriate to hear opinions of both parties, and quash the judgment in prior instance and remand the case to the court of prior instance in accordance with Article 411, item (i) and the main clause of Article 413 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In view of the circumstances of the case including the nature of the reason for quashing the judgment in prior instance as mentioned above, the details of the charged case, and the developments in the proceedings, it should be said that in light of the purport of Article 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the final appellate court is not necessarily required to hold an oral argument in order to quash the judgment in prior instance and remand the case to the court of prior instance.

Accordingly, the Court unanimously decides as set forth in the main text of the judgment.

Presiding Judge

Justice MIYAZAKI Yuko

Justice TOKURA Saburo

Justice HAYASHI Keiichi

Justice UGA Katsuya

Justice HAYASHI Michiharu

(This translation is provisional and subject to revision.)