May this year marks the 15th anniversary since the introduction of the Saiban-in (Lay judge in criminal cases) system. Please give us a summary of the influence of the introduction of this system on criminal trials. Additionally, if there have been any issues identified through practice during this period, please tell us these along with the countermeasures.

I recognize that the Saiban-in system has been operated stably and smoothly in general since its introduction. This owes to the understanding and cooperation of many citizens, and taking this opportunity, I would like to express my gratitude to them.
During this period, the trial process in which Saiban-in and judges directly see and hear necessary evidence at open court to form their impressions accurately has been almost established as practice. I think that the conduct of trials in such an easy-to-understand manner holds great significance in securing the public trust in criminal trials. This is the result of the ingenuity and endeavor of not only judges but also public prosecutors and defense counsels over 15 years. In this respect, I would also like to express my respect to them.
On the other hand, turning our attention to issues, one of the issues that remain unsolved is the prolongation of the pretrial conference procedure. This could cause the fading of memories of witnesses and other persons involved in cases, which could undermine the substance of the trials, which must be conducted under the ideal of placing emphasis on proceedings in the trial and the principles of direct examination. Various matters have been pointed out as causes of the prolongation, but first of all, judges, who preside over the procedure, must make continued efforts to overcome problems by, for example, holding in-depth discussion on how to set the goal to be achieved in proceedings to arrange issues and evidence, while promoting consensus among the three elements of the legal profession.

I would like to ask you about the introduction of information technology in judicial proceedings. In the field of civil litigation, where online proceedings have progressively become further available, the web-conferencing system was put into use in oral argument proceedings in March this year. Additionally, the introduction of electronic arrest warrants in criminal proceedings is currently under consideration. Please tell us your view on issues and the future vision for the judiciary.

From the perspective of consolidating the rule of law in Japan, it is important that courts, which support this, should be accessible and reliable to citizens. I think that the digitalization of litigation proceedings has a great significance in improving citizens' access to justice and making courts more familiar to citizens. At the same time, given the improved access to justice, it is also critical to strive to make litigation proceedings as a whole more rational and efficient through digitalization, speeding up the proceedings more than before, while improving the quality of trials.
From this viewpoint, in the field of civil litigation, where digitalization has made progress ahead of other fields, courts across the country have been discussing how to conduct streamlined and efficient proceedings and actively taking initiatives, such as conducting oral discussion with the use of the web-conferencing system introduced earlier and proceedings to arrange issues and evidence by leveraging the benefit of chatting and data sharing. I hope that these initiatives will continue to be carried out in the future.
In the field of domestic relations, where the parties themselves appear at court in most cases, the use of the web-conferencing system in conciliation proceedings is being promoted from the perspective of meeting the demands of users, such as reducing the burden of the parties to appear at court, and securing the safety and peace of mind of parties who are victims of domestic violence. It is necessary to push these initiatives further forward to secure citizens' access to justice in a substantial manner.

One-and-a-half years have passed since the establishment of the Business Court, a court that specializes in handling business-related litigation, in Nakameguro, Tokyo. Based on its expected role, please give a summary of this period and share the issues and countermeasures that have emerged.

Business-related cases, such as intellectual property disputes, commercial or economic disputes, and business rehabilitation or bankruptcy proceedings, need to be resolved very quickly and are often international. The Business Court was established to accurately meet the demands of users in such cases.
As only one-and-a-half years have passed since the Business Court was opened in October 2022, I cannot yet say that the court has accumulated sufficient experience. However, I heard that at the Intellectual Property High Court, the percentage of cases using the civil case document electronic filing system called "mints" is far higher than at other high courts and district courts, and proceedings are carried out with the use of data. Furthermore, specialized divisions in the Business Court actively exchange opinions beyond their boundaries toward speeding up and enhancing proceedings. Therefore, I think that a good environment is being developed.
Looking ahead, we will share the knowledge obtained through these initiatives with all courts nationwide and further promote interchange with foreign legal professionals, while more actively publicizing the features of the Business Court, with the hope that the Business Court will be the driver for enhancing the specialized and international characteristics of civil justice in Japan.

In the impeachment trial in which the indictment of a judge of the Sendai High Court was requested, the impeachment court rendered a judgment to dismiss the judge on April 3. This was the first case in which a judge was dismissed for his act of expression, and it was also a rare case that led to the dismissal of a judge based on the request for prosecution by citizens, not by the court. Please tell us how you understand and think about this judgment as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

I take it very seriously that a judge was dismissed by the impeachment court. As the Diet's indictment committee and the impeachment court made decisions within the constitutional framework, I will refrain from expressing what I think about the content of the impeachment trial as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

I would like to ask you about cases involving sexual minorities as parties. At present, actions seeking legalization of same-sex marriage have been filed with district and high courts and judgments have been handed down. In addition, at the Supreme Court, a decision was made on a case filed by a person who had undertaken a gender-reassignment surgery due to gender identity disorder, and a similar case is currently pending. With the situation of such diversification of people's views on gender, how do you think the judiciary should face these issues?

I will refrain from commenting on any specific cases. While I talked about the qualities of judges last year, as the background to cases handled at courts, people's values and awareness have been diversifying to a greater extent, and given such changes and diversification in public awareness, courts have the mission to pursue more appropriate solutions to disputes based on the interpretation of law. Therefore, I think that judges who deal with such cases are required to listen to conflicting arguments with a broad perspective and render appropriate decisions with reasons on the various issues arising from the diversification of public values and awareness. In order to perform this task accurately, individual judges need to enhance their insight on these issues voluntarily and independently through their daily work and living at their place of work or by participating in necessary training. To ensure that judges will deepen their insight on social movements causing issues at the time, as efforts by individual judges are not enough, it is important for those in charge of judicial administration to make efforts to develop an environment that will enable judges to do so.

While there is debate over the issue of “politics and money” at the Diet, the phrase “right to know” is often mentioned. What are your thoughts on the increasing public interest in “the right to know”?

As cases involving “the right to know”, many disputes over information disclosure by the national and local governments have been brought to courts. In deciding on these cases, courts interpret laws as well as ordinances relating to information disclosure. “The right to know” serves to ensure the effective functioning of democracy, the constitutional framework of Japan. We always face conflicting values when we make decisions in cases, but at the same time, we conduct proceedings while keeping in mind the need to have democracy function effectively.

Regarding the surname of a married couple, lawsuits seeking legalization of the optional use of separate surnames by a married couple have been filed with courts, and the public interest has been growing in relation to the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of marriage and substantial gender equality. How do you see these movements?

In the past cases, the Grand Bench of the Supreme Court dealt with disputes over optional use of separate surnames by a married couple or the family register system, and decided on the constitutionality of the current systems. Since cases on this issue are expected to be brought to courts in the future, it is difficult to express my current thoughts on this matter. However, as I mentioned earlier, this issue concerns what ideas judges should adopt as they deepen their understanding of society, and it also has extensive implications. Therefore, as hinted in the Grand Bench judgments, it is necessary for us to be aware of the relationships between legislature and judiciary in particular among the three branches of government, and we will make accurate decisions depending on the circumstances of the time.

I would like to ask you about family courts. I think that family courts are required to play a greater role along with the recent diversification of values of families. Family courts are expected to play a major role in the issue of joint custody, which is currently under discussion at the Diet, and also in conducting judicial review on temporary custody by child guidance centers. At the same time, lawyers question whether family courts have sufficient resources to be able to play such role. Please tell us your view about what family courts should be and how to enhance their resources.

As you pointed out, various issues concerning families, particularly the relationships between husband and wife or parents and child, have been brought to family courts in the form of cases. Unlike civil lawsuits, cases handled by family courts are not processed by finding the facts in the past and determining the existence or nonexistence of legal relationships, but, based on these, they involve forecasts on the future, such as the future visions for families, married couples, and parent-child relationships, or in other words, what decision or adjudication is necessary for securing the child's interest or the values assumed under respective laws. For example, in the review on the extension of temporary custody or the review on joint custody that is to be conducted if the relevant law is enacted in the future, the family courts will have to make a decision not only by seeing the superficial circumstances but also by closely looking into the background of the case. This will be a very big and difficult challenge for family courts. In addition, for judges handling these cases, it must be extremely important that a clearer framework for making a decision be available. Judges will be supposed to make an accurate decision after sufficiently understanding new values as well as the objectives and spirits of new laws. In this respect, family courts will face high expectations from the public, and accordingly, it is essential for judges to make efforts to deepen their understanding and knowledge. We will also need to take various opportunities to provide necessary information and enhance training for judges. Regarding the resources of family courts, both quantity and quality become issues for cases to be handled, and while we should necessarily consider the quantitative issue, we should also face the difficulty of making a decision. Therefore, if a law is enacted to have family courts take responsibility for such cases, we will need to establish preparations to enable family courts to make an accurate decision on these issues.

I would like to ask you about how courts will deal with generative AI, such as ChatGPT. In last year's conference, you stated that the essence of human judges conducting court proceedings will not change. Please tell us your view on how this technology should be used in litigation proceedings and in administrative procedures from each perspective.

The recent development of generative AI is remarkable, and this technology is actually utilized in a wide range of fields in society. In terms of how courts will deal with this technology in the field of judiciary, it may be impossible for courts to have nothing to do with generative AI. For example, in Europe, generative AI is used to make decisions on relatively minor cases. In Japan, however, it has not become realistic to use generative AI in making judicial decisions, and for the time being, the use of generative AI will be considered as a means of increasing efficiency in the execution of duties by judges, if this issue is ever considered. However, such use will pose an issue of security risk because courts handle sensitive information. At present, courts keep individual information on specific cases undisclosed, so judges are not allowed to utilize generative AI on the internet using such information. In addition, although we are not advancing specific deliberations, if the utilization of generative AI comes up in the future, there will be issues, such as what generative AI is in itself, whether it infringes copyrights and other rights due to the mass data it learns, and whether there is any bias in the content of learning. In addition to these technical issues, as you may know, judges are expected to improve their capability and skills by working hard in dealing with cases, so it may be necessary to carefully consider the extent to which judges are allowed to use support from generative AI. Ultimately, it is extremely important to consider such issue from the perspective of securing the public trust in the judicial system. Therefore, it is of paramount importance to identify advantages and disadvantages of the use of generative AI in judges’ duties and then consider it from the perspective of whether public understanding can be gained.