Judgments of the Supreme Court

Search Results

2021 (A) 964

Date of the judgment (decision)

2021.12.10

Case Number

2021 (A) 964

Reporter

Keishu Vol. 75, No. 9

Title

Decision concerning the necessity of the stay of court proceedings under Article 6 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure in the case where it is clear that a request for change of jurisdiction was filed merely for the purpose of delaying proceedings

Case name

Case charged for intimidation

Result

Decision of the Third Petty Bench, dismissed

Court of the Prior Instance

Takamatsu High Court, Judgment of June 8, 2021

Summary of the judgment (decision)

Where it is clear that a request for change of jurisdiction was filed merely for the purpose of delaying proceedings, it is not necessary to stay the court proceedings pursuant to Article 6 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

References

Article 17 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 6 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure

Code of Criminal Procedure

Article 17 (1) A public prosecutor must request the next higher court of the court concerned to effect a change of jurisdiction when:

(i) the competent court is unable to exercise its jurisdiction owing to legal reasons or special circumstances;

(ii) there is a concern that the impartiality of the trial cannot be maintained owing to the general sentiment of the local people in the district, the state of the proceedings, or due to any other circumstances.

(2) In the cases prescribed in each of the items of the preceding paragraph, the accused may also request a change of jurisdiction.

Rules of Criminal Procedure

(Stay of Court Proceedings)

Article 6 When a request for designation or a change of jurisdiction is filed for a case pending before a court, court proceedings shall be stayed until an order is issued thereon; provided, however, that this shall not apply in cases of urgency.

Main text of the judgment (decision)

The final appeal is dismissed.

Out of the number of days of pre-sentencing detention for this instance, 60 days are included in the calculation of the sentence.

Reasons

The reasons for final appeal stated by the defense counsel, HAYASHI Hiroyasu, are arguments of a mere violation of laws and regulations and an erroneous finding of facts, and the reasons for final appeal stated by the accused, including the arguments of violation of the Constitution and violation of a judicial precedent, are substantially arguments of a mere violation of laws and regulations and an erroneous finding of facts. None of these reasons constitutes any of the reasons for a final appeal as referred to in Article 405 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In consideration of the arguments of the defense counsel and the accused, the Court makes a determination by its authority.

According to the findings of the judgment in prior instance and the judgment in first instance upheld thereby, the accused had repeatedly filed a request for change of jurisdiction to a high court in relation to this case and a request for change of jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in relation to the case seeking said request for change of jurisdiction, etc. in the first instance and prior instance, respectively. In light of the background to and development of the filing of these requests for change of jurisdiction and reasons for the requests, etc., it was clearly found regarding requests for change of jurisdiction that were pending after the time the court of first instance designated May 22, 2020, as the second trial date at the latest, that all were filed merely for the purpose of delaying the proceedings. It should be said that it is not necessary to stay court proceedings pursuant to Article 6 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure in the case where it is clear that a request for change of jurisdiction was filed merely for the purpose of delaying proceedings as in this case. The determination of the court of prior instance to the same effect as above is justifiable.

Accordingly, in accordance with Article 414, Article 386, paragraph (1), item (iii), and the proviso to Article 181, paragraph (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 21 of the Penal Code, the Court unanimously decides as set forth in the main text of the judgment.

Presiding Judge

Justice TOKURA Saburo

Justice UGA Katsuya

Justice HAYASHI Michiharu

Justice NAGAMINE Yasumasa

Justice WATANABE Eriko

(This translation is provisional and subject to revision.)