Case Summary 

The three plaintiffs with intellectual disabilities began living at a ranch farm in Hokkaido after graduating from high school. As for the period of living, individuals have been living on-site since as early as 1976 for some, and from 2003 for others.

The three plaintiffs would wake up early in the morning and work on taking care of cows and farming until sunset. They only took two days off a year, but never got paid. Also, their bankbooks containing the disability pension were managed by the rancher, and they have never received the entitled pension.

The three of them lived in prefabricated huts with no air conditioning or running water. The only toilet they had was a vault toilet in one of the huts. Also, in winter the highest temperature is often below freezing in Hokkaido, but only one person's hut had heating equipment.

Furthermore, they were only allowed to take a bath if they had to go outside to run errands, and they washed themselves with the tap water in the cowshed.

▲The ranch in question

By the end of January 2017, Eniwa City was aware that the plaintiffs were being forced to live in horrible conditions in prefabricated huts rather than in the main house, and there were suspicions of financial exploitation, including pension benefits.

Despite the realization, Eniwa City told the Support Consultation Center that was about to investigate the case that the City would conduct the investigation and stopped the Center. Yet, Eniwa City let the situation continue and did not conduct any specific investigation or carry out any rescue actions for about 5 years. 

It was not until 2022 that the plaintiffs decided to leave the ranch and were rescued from the abuse. If Eniwa City had taken action in 2017, the plaintiffs would have been rescued from the atrocious living environment at least five years earlier, and their disability pensions would not have been exploited during that period.

▲The prefabricated hut on the premises of the ranch where the plaintiff lived and the inside of it

Two Key Issues

Failure to actviolates the Act on the Prevention of Abuseof Persons with Disabilities

There is no doubt that the Constitution provides protection to the dignity of persons with disabilities.   

Based on this premise, according to the Act on Prevention of Abuse of Persons with Disabilities, the Act clearly states that abuse against persons with disabilities harms the dignity of the persons, and that “No person shall abuse persons with disabilities.'' (Article 3 of the Act)

It also imposes a duty to act on the local governments for the prevention, early detection of abuse of persons with disabilities and other preventive measures against abuse. 

As such, it is obvious that the local government should not conceal abuse or obstruct investigations. Also, it is illegal for the local government to ignore suspicions of abuse despite being aware of it.

Has the act of the local government influenced by political considerations for the council chairman?

The rancher had been a city council member from 1991 to 2011 for 20 years, and was once the city council chairman. Additionally, the plaintiffs had been living in the confined space on the ranch for many years, and were placed in an environment where it was difficult for others to know their situations.

The legal team of this case thinks that it is probable that this incident occurred because Eniwa City Hall considered that the plaintiffs were not able to speak up for themselves due to their disabilities, and the City pandered to the council due to its long-term relationship it has with the city council. 

*On this platform, we specifically address the claims in the lawsuit against the local government.

 The Social Significance of This Lawsuit  

It is definitely not acceptable for the administrative government to pander to those in power, and knowingly turn a blind eye to the damages burdened by underprivileged individuals who cannot speak out, and even to try to conceal the situations. 

Furthermore, had the same situation happened to some other individuals, the government would for sure not do such a thing, but because it happened to individuals with disabilities, such conduct might be acceptable. This kind of attitude demonstrates conscious bias of the administrative government. 

There are only three plaintiffs in this case, but there are more than 9.6 million people with disabilities in Japan, accounting for 7-8% of the population.

For people with disabilities to gain independence and participate in society, it is important to create a place where they can feel safe to live. Yet, in many cases, people with disabilities are susceptible to abuse, and when they are abused, it may be difficult for them to recognize the damage and seek help from others.

This is why we have the reporting system. Also, here comes the duties of the administrative government to serve as the point of contact for responding to abuse, as well as early detection and prevention of abuse.

If the administrative government recognizes the abuse of people with disabilities, but hides it, ignores it, and accepts the abuse, people with disabilities cannot feel safe when living in such a society. In that sense, this case concerns all the persons with disabilities.

This case clarifies that the local government shall be responsible for the damages based on the government response to the situations, and that our society shall be a place where all the individuals, regardless of disabilities or not, are entitled to the same rights. 

 Words of the Plaintiffs  

We, the three plaintiffs in this case, did farm work and other work from dawn until dusk without being paid or any holiday break. We didn't even receive any disability pension. We lived in prefabricated huts in atrocious conditions for decades.

We lived in such an environment all the time, so we thought it was normal. However, when we left the farm and moved to a decent place, we realized how much we had been wrongfully abused.

Afterwards, we asked the rancher for our money, but received no response. Furthermore, even after this issue was reported in the newspapers, Eniwa City did not apologize or interview those involved, nor did they contact the parties involved.

Further, even when the plaintiffs' lawyer brought an open questionnaire to the City, they refused to even accept the questionnaire, showing no sincerity at all.

Therefore, we decided to file the lawsuit.

 Comments of the Plaintiff Attorney 

My name is Nakajima and I am the principal attorney of the defense team.

This is my 17th year as a lawyer (as of November 2023). I have a child with severe intellectual disability and autism. For the first half of my career as a lawyer, I was a typical working person (I usually took the last train home and took about only two days off a month), but after learning that my child had a disability, I began to prioritize my family.

Even if people with intellectual disabilities cannot speak or express themselves well, they understand many things and have abundant sensibilities. I believe that my work as a lawyer is only possible because I understand this.

As a lawyer, when I met with the plaintiffs and listened to their experiences, I instinctively thought that what the rancher and the City did was not right. If this kind of thing is allowed, disabled people and their families will not be able to feel safe when living in such a society, and I believe this is a problem that cannot be ignored.

All of the plaintiffs are in their 60s. I almost cried when they told me that their mini 4QD toy cars are their treasures and that they were so happy when they received 5,000 yen from the rancher twice a year. 

I want to make it clear that it is unacceptable for the government to cover up problems by pandering to those in power, and that the government shall be held responsible for allowing abuses that could have been avoided.

 Attorney in charge  

Akiko Funayama｜ Sapporo Bar Association｜ Lupines Law Office
Satoshi Nakajima｜ Sapporo Bar Association｜ Hokkaido Godo Law Office
Yoshii Yamada｜ Sapporo Bar Association｜ Hokkaido Godo Law Office
Rei Yoshida｜ Sapporo Bar Association｜ Clark Law Office
Yuki Hashimoto｜ Sapporo Bar Association｜ Hokkaido Godo Law Office
Masami Kamisaka｜ Sapporo Bar Association｜ Sapporo Frontier Law Office
Kaoru Himitani｜ Sapporo Bar Association｜ Hokkaido Godo Law Office

 Use of Fund  

1 Necessary expenses for filing the lawsuit (stamp fees, postage stamps, etc.)
We have already incurred over 300,000 yen in stamp fees.

2 Other expenses for the court proceedings
There may be other incidental costs associated with court procedures such as evidence preservation procedures, expert opinions, and costs for having welfare personnel serve as witnesses.

3. Other expenses related to litigation
For example, you will need to visit Eniwa City Hall, observe Eniwa City Council meetings, hold study sessions, listen to various people's stories, and often travel back and forth between Sapporo and Eniwa City (about 1 hour by car).

4 Costs to making social awareness of this lawsuit
The plaintiffs in this lawsuit are three people with intellectual disabilities, but we believe that behind them are people with disabilities all over Japan. We would like to invite various people related to disabilities, such as organizations for people with disabilities and welfare organizations in Hokkaido, to attend the trial and disseminate information about the lawsuit.

5 Administrative costs

6 Attorney fees
Until now, the plaintiff attorney team has not received any fees or remuneration. This is because the plaintiffs, who have had their disability pensions exploited, cannot afford it. After using the donations we have received from everyone to cover the expenses listed above, if there is any leftover money, we will use it to cover legal fees.

* In cases we received too many donations over the reasonable amount for the attorney fee, we will use the extra donation to support similar lawsuits in the future. 

 Final remarks 

In 2014, Japan ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which guarantees the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities and prohibits discrimination. It has been almost 10 years since the ratification, but there are still many discriminations against people with disabilities in the administrative field, both consciously and unconsciously. 

We would like to change such attitudes of the administrative government, emphasizing that abuse is absolutely unacceptable. We would like to ask you to make a donation to help realize a world where what should not happen will never happen. 

The lawsuit was filed on August 24, 2023, and the first oral argument is scheduled for November 28.

The lawsuit battle has just started!