Supreme Court of Japan > About the Supreme Court > Topics > Outline of the Press Conference by Chief Justice IMASAKI on 16 August, 2024
Chief Justice IMASAKI held a press conference upon his appointment, published his Inaugural Address(PDF:105KB), and answered questions from reporters as follows.
[Reporter]
Let us hear your feelings and aspirations upon assuming the office of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
[Chief Justice]
I am truly humbled by the grave responsibility of this position. I remember saying something similar when I assumed the position of a Justice of the Supreme Court, but the weight of the responsibility I bear this time is exceptional. Although I cannot possibly measure up to the greatness of my predecessors, I intend to do what I can do steadily and faithfully.
Rather than a specific set of aspirations, I would like to take this opportunity to express what I am thinking about right now. In terms of the number of cases, the Supreme Court handles only a small number of cases compared to the number of cases handled by the district, family, and summary courts. Although the Supreme Court attracts attention over every matter, when we look at Japan as a whole, the workload of lower courts, especially courts of first instance, is overwhelming, and it is no exaggeration to say that their work defines the state of the judiciary of Japan. In order to ensure that these lower courts will do a good job and gain the trust of the people, I believe that it is an important role of the Supreme Court, both in the handling of cases and judicial administration, to enable the judges and officials of these courts to fulfill their duties freely and without constraint.
[Reporter]
Please tell us about the current issues facing the courts, such as the speeding up of trials and the digitalization of court proceedings. Also, please tell us your thoughts about the ideal state of the courts in the future.
[Chief Justice]
Regarding the expediting of trials, the court's job is to find a proper and speedy solution to each case, which means that the realization of speedy trials is one of the most important missions of the court. Recently, the length of proceedings in ordinary civil cases and the length of the pretrial conference procedure in criminal cases are often discussed in this respect, but speed is important in other areas as well.
Factors inhibiting speedy trials are being analyzed in various ways. However, I think that there is at least a consensus within the courts that we need to review the current manner of conducting proceedings. The question is how to do this in concrete terms. This is a matter of practice rather than theory, and I have heard that concrete measures and initiatives are being carried out in various courts. Although this requires trial and error in some respects, I hope that courts will take a bold challenge without fear of failure. The Supreme Court will also support such attempts.
The digitalization of the judiciary is of great significance to the public in that it increases the convenience of access to justice. Additionally, it is also important in the context of realizing appropriate and speedy trials. Digitalization should not be merely the introduction of new IT tools into trials, but it is truly meaningful when it is achieved as part of the efforts to improve the quality of proceedings and judgments. In this respect, digitalization is an important reform that will affect the future of the judiciary.
Regarding the ideal state of the court, the court's job is to steadily deal with each case and find an appropriate solution, and in this sense, the "ideal state" remains unchanged throughout all times. If I were to talk about my dream for the near future, I would say that various reforms, including digitalization, will make communication among lawyers, public prosecutors, and judges much smoother, make their interactions in the courtroom more lively and intense, and enable judges and court officials, perhaps even including lawyers and public prosecutors, to get rid of the thick paperwork from their desks. I am dreaming of such a scene, and I am looking forward to seeing how close I can get to achieving that dream while I am still in office.
[Reporter]
In light of the increasing diversity in individuals' values and societal awareness, there have been a series of cases in various parts of the country that have been filed by sexual minorities to seek redress under the Constitution. How, in your view, should the judiciary deal with these issues?
[Chief Justice]
I must refrain from answering your question regarding specific cases. That is, the cases you mentioned probably include cases in which I was involved as a judge, and I will not say more about the cases in which I was involved than the opinions I expressed in the judgments and decisions. As the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, I am not in a position to comment on other cases that are currently pending or may be pending in the future before courts, including lower courts, and on issues related to those cases.
In general terms, I believe that as people's values and behavior patterns diversify, there will be more and more cases, including the ones you mentioned, that involve new perspectives and issues that have never been seen before.
However, this doesn’t mean that I or any other judge should deal with such cases with any special mindset or sense of purpose. Judges are required to have a great deal of competence in dealing with such cases. Since these cases involve a new legal issue, judges have to analyze and examine it from a legal perspective. Moreover, they cannot do so without an understanding of the background social situation and reality, and they must have a balanced judgment from multiple perspectives. In short, their comprehensive ability as a judge is put to the test, and therefore it is essential for them to enhance such ability and insight on a regular basis. It is also important for judges to always discuss such topics casually with each other away from the cases they deal with.
[Reporter]
There has been a debate over constitutional revision. As the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, also known as the "guardian of the Constitution," please tell us your thoughts on the Constitution.
[Chief Justice]
The Constitution is the foundation of the rule of law in our country, and it is important that it draws interest from the public on a regular basis.
However, the court's job is to interpret the Constitution and apply it in the course of dealing with specific cases. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is one of the judges, and I believe that his or her "thoughts on the Constitution" should be revealed only when and to the extent that it is necessary in judging a specific case. I will refrain from expressing my thoughts in any other situation.
[Reporter]
How do you spend your days off? Please tell us about your hobbies and any ideas or words that you cherish.
[Chief Justice]
I don’t follow a routine on my days off. I am more of an indoor person, reading books and listening to music. In the past, I often visited museums with my wife, but we stopped doing this due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Recently, we have started visiting museums again, but now we have to stop it due to the heat of this summer.
As I wrote in detail on my profile page of the court's website, I cherish Julius Caesar's saying, "Most people only see what they want to see." This is a translation by SHIONO Nanami, and I prefer it to the literal translation.
[Reporter]
At his press conference upon retirement, former Chief Justice TOKURA Saburo said that he hoped that Justice Imasaki, with his wide range of experience as an attaché and judicial research official in addition to his abilities as a criminal judge, would be able to make a great contribution to the current situation where the prolonged pretrial conference procedure in trials under the Saiban-in system is cited as an issue to be addressed. Could you please share your thoughts on this comment by former Chief Justice TOKURA?
[Chief Justice]
Although I am not fully aware of what former Chief Justice TOKURA said, if his intention was to address the issue of prolongation of the pretrial conference procedure, I would agree that this is an important issue, and at the same time, it is a very deep issue. The prolongation of the pretrial conference procedure is a challenge both for cases tried under the Saiban-in system and other cases; however, it is particularly serious for trials under the Saiban-in system, where the pretrial conference procedure must be conducted in all cases.
Considering the recent operation of trials under the Saiban-in system and the operation of these trials at the time when the Saiban-in system started, there has been a noticeable increase in the length of the pretrial conference procedure. In addition, the length of time after the commencement of trial proceedings has also slightly increased, and the number of trials held seems to have also increased. I have the impression that as a result of such prolongation, judgments written for these trials have become more detailed and longer compared to those initially written. Viewed as a whole, this can be evaluated as showing that the judges and Saiban-in examine evidence and hold deliberations very carefully and consider the cases thoroughly. This is a good thing in itself, but we should think a little bit about whether we can just say that it was a good thing.
The Saiban-in system is a system built upon the burden borne by the public. It is important to be careful, but excessive carefulness will inevitably increase the burden. First of all, it will take a longer time for Saiban-in to engage in proceedings and deliberations, and this is not desirable for the accused or for the victim or their family and bereaved family. There will also be various procedural burdens on public prosecutors and defense counsels, and of course, the court will also have to bear a burden.
In short, it is not good to be excessively careful. This should be especially emphasized because the Saiban-in system is supported by the burden on the public. Judges in charge of managing trials under the Saiban-in system should be wary of this point. It is important to keep in mind that the increasing length of the pretrial conference procedure might be correlated with excessive carefulness. If excessive carefulness is causing the prolongation of the pretrial conference procedure, I don't think it will be a fundamental solution even if we can shorten the length of the procedure by taking technical, makeshift measures. With 15 years having passed since its introduction, the Saiban-in system is being operated smoothly in general with the warm cooperation and understanding of the public. I think it would be a good idea to take this opportunity to review the operation of this system from such perspective, at a time when it is being operated stably.
[Reporter]
What are your thoughts about the use of generative AI?
[Chief Justice]
I am certain that generative AI will become a major factor not only in the judiciary but also in every aspect of society in the future. The judiciary will have to consider how to deal with generative AI.
However, it is often said that there are various issues regarding generative AI. When we consider how to utilize generative AI in courts, we can first think of replacing judges' core function to make decisions with generative AI in some form, or of using generative AI as a tool for making decisions. This is an issue that concerns the very essence of trials, and it is not merely an issue of whether it is technically feasible to use generative AI in this manner, but also a larger issue of whether the public will be satisfied with such practice, and whether it is appropriate for the judiciary to adopt it.
Even if we do not go that far, I think that the use of generative AI for various types of information processing in court proceedings deserves consideration as a little more realistic issue. However, there are various issues to be considered regarding the current generative AI, such as whether there is any bias in training data, whether there are any copyright problems, whether there are any problems related to the privacy of the parties, and, as courts deal with sensitive information, whether there are any security problems. After carefully examining each of these problems, we should consider the ideal way of using generative AI for trials and clerical work in courts from a medium- to long-term perspective. I do not intend to be passive in any way, but I think that there are various issues that need to be addressed when considering the use of generative AI.
[Reporter]
It has been 15 years since the Saiban-in system began. Please tell us about impressive cases tried under this system, if any, in which you have been involved as a presiding judge.
[Chief Justice]
This may overlap with what I spoke when I assumed the office of a Supreme Court Justice. As I attended a trial as a presiding judge at the time when the Great East Japan Earthquake occurred, I was particularly impressed by the behavior of the people who served as Saiban-in at that time.
We were supposed to finish the proceeding on Friday and hand down a judgment on Monday, but at the end of the proceeding, while the defense counsel was presenting their argument, there was a tremor. We were unable to continue the proceeding that day, so we had to ask Saiban-in to go home. I think it was around 11:30 p.m., the last Saiban-in called to let us know that he/she had arrived home safely, and we were able to end the day in relief.
The question was how we should deal with the proceeding of this case. Since the accused was in custody, I, as the presiding judge, wanted to finish the proceeding somehow. So, when Saiban-in left the court on that day, I asked them to come to the court on Monday so that we could continue the proceeding as scheduled. I also told the public prosecutor and defense counsel the same thing, and they agreed cordially. I was worried about whether Saiban-in would actually show up on Monday, but six of the seven Saiban-in (six Saiban-in and one alternate Saiban-in) came to court on time, and the remaining one called, saying "I'm waiting for the train now, and there's a huge line, but I'll be there," and finally arrived at court a little late. Then, we all gathered in the courtroom and completed the proceeding with the argument by the defense counsel and the final statement by the accused. The judges and Saiban-in went back to the conference room to hold deliberations, prepared a judgment and handed down the judgment on that day as scheduled. I often recall this case. I was very impressed that all the Saiban-in came to court under those circumstances, and none of them expressed any concerns. They went home with a good feeling, saying that they had done their job. I remember that I was very moved by such behavior of the Saiban-in.
[Reporter]
I understand that you have a reputation as a specialist in criminal trials. Did you always want to be a criminal trial specialist from the beginning?
[Chief Justice]
When I was appointed as a judge, I wanted to deal with civil cases. My first appointment was to the Criminal Division of the Tokyo District Court, but I was not dissatisfied with that. I enjoyed working there very much and the presiding judge at the time was a wonderful person, so it was a very good experience. After that, I was allowed to study abroad, and after returning to Japan, I worked at the Criminal Affairs Bureau of the Supreme Court for a little over half a year. Then, I was transferred to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and I worked as a second secretary at the Embassy of Japan in the Philippines for two years before returning to Japan. I think this was the turning point in my destiny. After returning to Japan, I was assigned to the Kyoto District Court, where I was in charge of criminal cases. I think this probably set the course for my career. Since I had never dealt with anything other than criminal cases for more than 10 years since my first appointment, the personnel officials might have thought that it would be risky to put me in charge of anything else. Since then, I have been assigned to criminal cases for the rest of my career. Looking back, I think it would have been desirable for me to have experience in civil, domestic affairs, and juvenile cases as well, even if I eventually ended up in charge of criminal cases, and in that sense I think it was unfortunate. However, I am satisfied with my life as a judge because I have been involved in the work to design the Saiban-in system and in the practice of trials under this system. In that sense, I have some mixed feelings, but I consider my life as a judge to be a happy one.