1997.09.16

1997 (Shi) 160

Keishu Vol. 51, No. 8 at 567

Decision concerning whether or not a ruling to extend the period of detention is included in the scope of "court proceedings" set forth in Article 6 of the Rule of Criminal Procedure

Case of special appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision to dismiss the quasi-appeal from a ruling to extend the period of detention

Decision of the Second Petty Bench, dismissed

Yokohama District Court, Decision of August 28, 1997

A ruling to extend the period of detention is not included in the scope of "court proceedings" set forth in Article 6 of the Rule of Criminal Procedure.

Article 6 of the Rule of Criminal Procedure, Article 60 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

Article 6 of the Rule of Criminal Procedure
Where a request is made for designation or transfer of the jurisdiction with regard to a case pending at a court, court proceedings shall be suspended until a decision on the said request is made; provided, however, that this shall not apply in an urgent case.

Article 60 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(1) The court may detain the accused when there is probable cause to suspect that he/she has committed a crime and when:
(i) The accused has no fixed residence;
(ii) There is probable cause to suspect that he/she may conceal or destroy evidence;
(iii)The accused has fled or there is probable cause to suspect that he/she may flee.
(2) The period of detention shall be two months from the date of institution of prosecution. In cases where it is especially necessary to continue the detention, the period may, by a ruling with a specific reason, be extended for additional one-month periods. However, the extension shall only be allowed once, except as otherwise prescribed in Item (1), (3), (4) or (6) of Article 89.
(3) With regard to cases which shall be punished with a fine of not more than 300,000 yen (with regard to crimes other than those under the Penal Code, the Act on Punishment of Violence and Other Acts (Law No. 60 of 1926), and the Act on the Penal Regulations for Economic Affairs(Law No. 4 of 1944), 20,000 yen for the time being), a misdemeanor imprisonment without work or petty fine, the provision of paragraph 1 of this article shall apply only when the accused has no fixed residence.

The special appeal is dismissed.

Among the reasons for special appeal, the one alleging violation of a judicial precedent is irrelevant in this case because the cited judicial precedent addresses a different type of facts, and the rest are nothing more than assertions of violation of laws or regulations, and none of them can be regarded as a reason for special appeal permissible under Article 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
We hereby add that the determination of the decision of prior instance is justifiable in that it concluded that a ruling to extend the period of detention does not fall within the scope of "court proceedings" set forth in Article 6 of the Rule of Criminal Procedure.

Therefore, according to Article 434 and Article 426, para.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the decision has been rendered in the form of the main text by the unanimous consent of the Justices.

Justice FUKUDA Hiroshi
Justice ONISHI Katsuya
Justice NEGISHI Shigeharu
Justice KAWAI Shinichi