*Tranlated by Google translate

Overview of the case

The plaintiff is a hunter living in Sunagawa City, Hokkaido.
He serves as the branch chief of the Sunagawa branch of the Hokkaido Hunters' Association, and also serves as a member of the Bird and Animal Damage Control Team commissioned by Sunagawa City.

The plaintiff received a permit to possess a rifle from the Hokkaido Prefectural Public Safety Commission and was engaged in the daily work of exterminating harmful birds and animals.

On August 21, 2018, the plaintiff, who had received a request from the city to exterminate a bear, went to the site of a brown bear sighting with a fellow hunter. At the time, brown bears had been spotted one after another over a three-day period, causing growing concern among local residents.

Because the brown bear spotted was still a cub, the plaintiff initially suggested leaving it alone. However, city officials strongly urged them to exterminate it. The reason given was that the bear had been seen for three consecutive days, and there was a high possibility that it would continue to appear in search of food, and local residents were also expressing strong concerns about its impact on their lives.

At the request of the city, the plaintiff decided to exterminate the brown bear. Before exterminating the bear, he confirmed that there was a 8m height difference behind the bear. The plaintiff then waited for the bear to stand up before firing. The bullet hit the bear, and the extermination was successful.

After the extermination was completed, we confirmed with our fellow hunters that there were no particular abnormalities, and disbanded for the day.

However, two months later, an investigation into the plaintiff's firing of the gun was launched after a fellow hunter reported that the plaintiff's bullet had ricocheted off and hit the fellow hunter's hunting rifle, damaging it.

However, as a result of the investigation, not only did the prosecution not indict the plaintiff, but the Governor of Hokkaido also did not revoke the plaintiff's hunting rifle permit on the grounds of violating the Wildlife Protection and Management Act.

Despite this, on April 24, 2019, the Hokkaido Prefectural Public Safety Commission ruled as follows and revoked the plaintiff's rifle permit: The plaintiff's firing of a firearm violated the Wildlife Protection and Management Act, as the bullets could have reached nearby buildings. Such firing violated Article 10, Paragraph 2 of the Swords and Firearms Control Act, and constituted grounds for revocation of the hunting rifle permit.

History

Filing of lawsuit

The plaintiff filed an administrative appeal, claiming that the Public Safety Commission's revocation of his hunting rifle permit was unjust, but the appeal was dismissed.
Therefore, a lawsuit was filed seeking the cancellation of the administrative action (if the Public Safety Commission's action to revoke the license is cancelled, the plaintiff will once again be permitted to possess a hunting rifle).

At the hearing,

1) Whether the plaintiff's firing was directed at a "building"
② Whether there is a risk that the fired bullets will reach the building,
 3) If the shooting was aimed at a "building where the bullets could reach," would it be appropriate to revoke the possession permit in this case ?

etc. were contested.

Sapporo District Court ruling (full text here )

The district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and ruled that the revocation of his hunting rifle license was illegal.
Regarding ③, the Sapporo District Court took into consideration the fact that the plaintiff had responded to a request amid growing anxiety among residents and that his actions were in the public interest; that there was an 8m-high embankment covered with vegetation behind the brown bear and that the buildings would have been barely visible from the plaintiff's position when the shot was fired; and that local residents had expressed relief after the bear was exterminated, and therefore found the revocation of the hunting rifle permit to be unreasonable and the revocation order to be illegal.
Although the Sapporo District Court stated that this was not relevant to the issue at hand, it also carefully examined the credibility of the testimony of the fellow hunter and determined that the testimony was not credible.

Sapporo High Court ruling (full text here )

However, in a complete reversal of the District Court's decision, the High Court rejected the plaintiff's argument and ruled that the revocation of the hunting rifle permit was lawful. The Sapporo High Court's specific ruling is as follows: Regarding ① and ②, taking into consideration the possibility of the plaintiff firing an incorrect shot or a ricochet (a bullet that bounces off a rock or other object and flies in an unexpected direction), even if the bullet had hit the brown bear, there was a risk that the subsequent change in trajectory could have led to it reaching a nearby building.
Regarding ③, not only could the bullet have ricocheted and reached the building, but it also posed a danger to fellow hunters, police officers, and staff at the scene, so it cannot be said to be unreasonable.
Furthermore, public institutions have traditionally relied on the dedicated efforts of hunting associations to exterminate brown bears, and although there have been many bear attacks in Hokkaido, these facts have no bearing on the illegality of the cancellation order.

The plaintiffs were completely dissatisfied with the High Court's ruling, which ignored the dedicated activities and social contributions of the hunting association and specifically emphasized the possibility of ricochets, and decided to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issues in the trial

In this case, the issue is the legitimacy of the revocation of the permit, which was made while emphasizing the risk of ricochets and ignoring the fact that the person was engaged in public interest activities. The first issue is whether the incident can be considered "firing at a building," and even if this is recognized, the next issue is whether the revocation was appropriate.

① Safety of launching
The first issue is whether the shots were fired at a "building that the bullets could reach."
If the possibility that the bullet fired by the plaintiff could reach the building is denied, there is no reason to revoke his hunting rifle possession, and therefore the Public Safety Commission's cancellation order can be said to be illegal.

In the appeals court, the issue raised was whether there was a risk that the bullet that hit Azuchi could ricochet and reach the "building."
At the time the plaintiff fired the shot, the slope behind the brown bear was a mountain with ordinary vegetation. If this ordinary satoyama slope were deemed to have the "possibility of a ricochet," it would make it impossible to carry out pest control activities on any mountain in Japan. The Sapporo High Court emphasized the slight possibility of a ricochet and the even more slight possibility that the ricochet could occur multiple times, but this must be said to be unreasonable.
If such a determination is confirmed, it could be determined that almost any shooting could reach the building.

② Reasonableness of the cancellation

Even if it is not possible to completely rule out the possibility of a bullet reaching a building, whether or not to revoke a hunting rifle permit for that reason is another matter.
In this case, the hunter engaged in the public service of exterminating harmful birds and animals, and despite successfully exterminating them without causing any damage, his license was revoked. If the appeal court's decision becomes final, hunters will no longer be able to carry out their work of exterminating harmful birds and animals with peace of mind.
In fact, since this incident was reported, many hunters have complained that they can no longer fire their guns safely (a chilling effect), causing confusion on the ground. (Furuhata Koki, "Hokkaido Hunters' Association to Issue Notice Accepting Branch Decision to Refuse to Comply with Bear Extermination Requests," Asahi Shimbun Digital, November 24, 2025, updated November 25, 2025)

If license revocations like this one become widespread, it could have a negative impact on human resource development and even lead to a decrease in the number of people involved in pest control. The Public Safety Commission's disciplinary action is grossly unreasonable and illegal.

3) Other issues

The plaintiffs also argue that the High Court's hearing and decision were unreasonable.

◆ Discrepancies between the start of the investigation and the reasons for the punishment

The case began when a fellow hunter reported that his gun had been damaged. However, the Public Safety Commission revoked the permit, stating that the bullet fired by the plaintiff could have hit a building rather than a person.
Therefore, there is a discrepancy between the origin of the matter (the possibility of reaching a person) and the reason for the revocation of the permit (the possibility of reaching a building), but in this case the issue is the illegality of the revocation of the permit, and the real issue is the possibility of reaching a building.
In fact, at the stage of clarifying the issues in the first and second trials, it was determined that the shooting of the fellow hunter was unrelated to the case.

◆ Recognition of ricochets to "people"

On the other hand, the Sapporo High Court found that the fellow hunter, who was a "person," was hit by a ricochet, and that this confirmed the danger of the shooting in question, and therefore found that the Public Safety Commission's decision to revoke the possession permit was justified. This requires the fellow hunter ("person") to be hit by a bullet, even though the issue is whether the "building" can be reached, and essentially undermines the elements of the sanction.
Furthermore, there are problems with the Sapporo High Court's findings of fact, which found that the fellow hunter was shot. In this case, the alleged ricochet bullet was never found. The damage to the fellow hunter's gun stock that was allegedly caused by the ricochet was only shown in a single photograph, and the causal relationship between the shooting and the bullet was not supported by any scientific investigation, such as whether there was a gunpowder reaction or whether there were any metal fragments attached.
Furthermore, the Sapporo High Court did not make any judgment on the credibility of the testimony of the fellow hunter, which in the first instance was deemed to contain "numerous unnatural points that should raise doubts." In overturning the first instance judgment, the Sapporo High Court did not criticize the reasons for the first instance judgment at all.

social significance

Our goal is not just to get Mr. Ikegami his gun back.
Our main goal is to restore an environment where future hunters can safely engage in pest control activities.
Another purpose of this lawsuit is to prevent the Public Safety Commission, which has broad discretionary power, from exercising that power arbitrarily.

Respect for the role of exterminating harmful birds and animals

As has been reported in various media, there has been a sudden increase in bear damage in recent years, and the importance of the social role of exterminating harmful birds and animals has become extremely high. (See page 5 of the Ministry of the Environment's "On the habitat and damage caused by bears").

Eliminate confusion and chilling effects on the job site

Following the high court ruling, the chairman of the Hokkaido Hunters' Association visited the launch site to confirm the incident.
The chairman also said about the slope at the site of the incident, "If it is determined that this is not a backstop, we will not be able to shoot anywhere. (If the ruling is finalized) it will be very difficult to shoot even if there is a request to exterminate the brown bears."
The Hokkaido Hunters' Association is also considering refusing requests from local governments to exterminate brown bears from branches that do not cooperate sufficiently with local governments and the police, causing great confusion at the pest extermination sites.

Securing personnel to protect and exterminate nearby residents

If this situation is left unchecked, it will not only harm the safety, property, and peaceful living environment of local residents, but it will also make it even more difficult to secure personnel to exterminate harmful birds and animals, which could lead to a decrease in the number of people who can do this work.

Use of donations

We set our first goal at 1 million yen.
As shown below, we have already had to spend approximately 600,000 yen on confirmed expenses alone. The amount above is the sum of this amount plus attorney's fees.
It has already been a year since the filing of the Statement of Grounds for Appeal and the Statement of Grounds for Acceptance of Appeal on December 20, 2024. If the trial at the Supreme Court begins in the future, Mr. Ikegami and his legal team will need to appear in court.

Currently, the estimated costs are as follows:

① Necessary expenses for filing a lawsuit: Currently, 39,000 yen + α
The amount of stamp duty required for the first instance trial was 13,000 yen, and the amount of stamp duty required for the appeal was 26,000 yen.Other costs incurred included the cost of copying and postage for mailing documents.

② Travel expenses: 528,000 yen at present <br> Expenses for travelling from Hokkaido to Tokyo: 80,000 yen x 4 times = 320,000 yen
They plan to stay overnight before and after each appearance. Nakamura and Ikegami are scheduled to appear in court twice.

The cost of travelling from Mie to Tokyo is 32,000 yen x 4 times = 128,000 yen. This is the cost of Attorney Ito travelling to Tokyo. It is planned to be a day trip by Shinkansen.

Travel expenses from Mie to Sunagawa to attend the on-site inspection: approximately 80,000 yen. In January 2024, Attorney Ito attended the on-site inspection from Mie Prefecture. This required expenditure of approximately 80,000 yen.

Furthermore, if the Supreme Court's decision is reversed and remanded rather than reversed, the case will be heard again at the Sapporo High Court.
In that case, not only may oral argument be held, but on-site inspections may also need to be redone.

③ Attorney's fees <br>If there is any remaining money after covering the above expenses, we would appreciate it if you could use it to pay the fees of our three attorneys.

Plaintiff's thoughts

Plaintiff Haruo Ikegami

Message from the lawyer in charge

Lawyer Nakamura is a hunter who belongs to the same Sunagawa branch of the Hokkaido Hunters' Association as Ikegami.

We have been involved in this case since the criminal case, before the disposition was handed down. Although Mr. Ikegami was not indicted in the criminal case, administrative procedures were initiated to revoke the disposition, and we have been fighting this lawsuit from the first instance, going through the hearing procedures and the administrative appeal review after the disposition was decided. Until now, we have not received any expenses because this is a case in the public interest, not a personal case involving Mr. Ikegami.

Due to Nakamura's lack of ability, the Sapporo High Court reversed the case and ruled against him.
At that time, lawyer Masaaki Ito, who serves as legal advisor to the Mie Prefecture Hunters' Association, offered to join the legal team at no cost to us.

Furthermore, because theoretical support was needed to fight the appeal, we also brought on attorney Yusuke Taira, who is also a researcher in administrative law. Taira has researched the control of administrative discretion and has written a commentary on the Sapporo District Court ruling in this case in a legal journal (Yusuke Taira, "Abuse and Abuse of Discretionary Power in the Revocation of Hunting Rifle Possession Permits," Law Seminar No. 806 (2022), p. 119).

In this way, a system was put in place that allowed us to receive the strongest support possible, even if we were a small group.

This case involves the Public Safety Commission, which has discretion over whether or not to take disciplinary action, exceeding and abusing that discretion in its exercise of power.
Police officers were also present during the bear extermination operation in which the shooting occurred. The police officers who were present testified in court that there were no problems at the scene. The punishment was decided by another police officer who was not present at the scene.

As already mentioned, the trigger for this disciplinary action was a report from a fellow hunter. This report was made two months after the plaintiff fired the shot, and in the two months between the shooting and the report, the shooting in question had not been considered a problem.

In the first trial, the testimony of the co-hunter was examined in detail and its credibility was denied, but in the appeal court ruling, the fact of the ricochet was somehow acknowledged without any mention of the credibility of the co-hunter's testimony.
I would also like to challenge the court's unusually lenient rulings toward public servants.

Introduction of the lawyer in charge

Noriaki Nakamura, Sapporo Bar Association Noriaki Nakamura Law Office Masaaki Ito, Mie Bar Association Minami-Shinmachi Law Office Yusuke Taira, Tokyo Bar Association AND Sogo Law Office

Conclusion

This case is not just a personal issue for Mr. Ikegami, but a lawsuit to protect the interests of all hunters engaged in pest control work.
Furthermore, we believe that this is a lawsuit in the public interest that also has a stake in the citizens, in the sense of preventing the arbitrary exercise of administrative power and preventing harm to brown bears.

For all of the above, this case is truly a "public lawsuit." We are both anxious and hopeful about how our activities will be evaluated by the public. We are asking for donations in the short term, but we would appreciate your cooperation.