*Translated by Google Translate

Introduction

The judge is the one who decides whether to make an arrest.
Police officers cannot arbitrarily arrest people. A judge must always make a decision beforehand.

The judge is the one who decides whether or not to detain someone.
Prosecutors cannot arbitrarily detain people. The judge makes the final decision.

Shizuo Aishima, a former advisor to Ohkawara Kakohki, was arrested on completely unfounded suspicions and remained deprived of his freedom for approximately 11 months. He died without ever being granted bail or having his detention lifted. Even when stomach cancer was discovered during his detention, the judge refused to grant him bail until the very end.

This lawsuit aims to confirm that the decisions of the 37 judges who continued to arrest and detain Mr. Aishima were illegal, and to restore the rule of law to Japan's criminal justice system.

▲The wife, holding a portrait of Mr. Aishima. Displayed on the Buddhist altar is a calligraphic work written by Shizuo that reads, "Justice will prevail, the truth is one." (Photo: Yoko Akiyoshi)

Contents of the lawsuit

The facts of this lawsuit are the same as those in the so-called Ohkawara Kakohki case.

Shizuo Aishima, an executive of Ohkawara Kakohki Co., Ltd., was arrested for violating the Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Act for exporting a spray dryer (a machine that turns liquid into powder) without permission from the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. As a result, Aijima and others were found innocent, and the charges against them were completely unfounded, as has already been confirmed in a lawsuit seeking state compensation from the investigating authorities (please see here for details of that lawsuit).

In that lawsuit, it was found that the investigative authorities' requests for arrest warrants, detention warrants, and indictments were illegal. However, the judges were not held legally accountable.

Shizuo was arrested on March 11, 2020, and his detention began on March 13.

The defense attorney filed an appeal against the detention and repeatedly applied for bail after the indictment. However, the judges consistently gave generic reasons and continued to rule that there was sufficient suspicion of the crime and that Shizuo was likely to conceal evidence or flee.

In October of that year, Shizuo was diagnosed with stomach cancer. His lawyers requested bail, arguing that he needed to undergo further examinations immediately. However, the judge denied bail, stating that even though Shizuo had stomach cancer, he might conceal evidence or attempt to flee.

Ultimately, Shizuo was never granted bail before his death on February 7, 2021.

Judges, who make independent judgments based on their own conscience, failed to check the runaway investigative agencies and instead mechanically continued to endorse their demands. Just like Shizuo, victims of "hostage justice" continue to be created today by this established system.

This lawsuit is a claim against the government for damages, alleging that the decisions of a total of 37 judges—including the judge who issued the arrest warrant, the judge who issued the detention order, and the judge who denied the bail request—were all illegal.

(Photo by Keisuke Yasuda)

Plaintiff's thoughts  

Background

The plaintiffs in this lawsuit are three family members of Shizuo Aishima.

As mentioned at the beginning, in the so-called Ohkawara Kakohki case, on May 28, 2025, the Tokyo High Court already finalized a judgment ordering the state to pay approximately 165 million yen in compensation, finding that there were illegalities in the police interrogation procedures and arrest, the prosecutor's request for detention, and the indictment.

Subsequently, in a report released on August 7 of the same year, the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office stated that the prosecution's opposition to the defense attorney's request for bail was inappropriate, as it "lacked the premise and basis for detention in the first place: 'sufficient grounds to suspect that the defendant had committed a crime.'"

Furthermore, regarding the death of Shizuo due to advanced stomach cancer, the report states that at the time of the bail request on October 19, 2021, it was easy to understand that Aijima's medical condition was serious and could directly threaten his life. It also states that "some medical institutions may be reluctant to accept patients whose detention has been suspended, and the content of examinations and treatments may be restricted. Therefore, as prosecutors, we were required to carefully reconsider whether there was a realistic risk of evidence tampering, even considering Shizuo's medical condition, and whether bail was inappropriate, and to take a flexible approach." It concludes, "In this case, where he died while under suspension of detention without being granted bail, we must deeply reflect on this."

On the same day, the National Police Agency also released a report stating that a malfunction in the chain of command within the Public Security Department led to the illegal arrests, and police authorities took measures such as disciplining nine executives and investigators involved at the time.

In the previous lawsuit seeking state compensation against the investigative authorities, the judges were not held accountable. This time, we are filing this lawsuit to hold accountable the judges who blindly accepted the investigative authorities' documents and made decisions regarding arrest, detention, prohibition of visits, extension of detention, denial of bail requests, and renewal of detention.

▲At the house the couple bought to spend their later years. "We didn't have enough time to create memories." (Photo by Yoko Akiyoshi)

Issues in the trial

Is the state liable for compensation based on the judge's decision?

The central issue in this lawsuit is whether the state is liable for damages related to the judge's decisions regarding arrest, detention, and denial of bail.
We argue that these decisions are illegal for the following reasons:

① There was no suspicion of a crime in the first place.

In Ohkawara Kakohki case, the definition of "sterilization" was at stake. However, there was no official documentation to support the interpretation of "sterilization" adopted by the investigative authorities. Under such circumstances, it should have been impossible to conclude that Mr. Aishima was suspected of committing a crime.

Furthermore, the spray dryers at Ohkawara Kakohki did not have the capability to "sterilize" in the first place. This point was explained to the investigating authorities not only by Shizuo, but also by several other employees of the company.

These facts could have been gleaned from the investigation documents. However, the judges, without critically examining the investigative authorities' claims, accepted them at face value and accepted the suspicion of a crime.

② Sufficient evidence had been collected at the time of the arrest.

In the year and a half prior to his arrest, Ohkawara Kakohki had already had a large amount of evidence gathered by law enforcement agencies. Numerous statements from those involved had also been prepared. Moreover, there was no reason to believe that Shizuo would conceal any evidence.

③ Bail was not granted even though the person had a serious illness.

Shizuo was diagnosed with advanced stomach cancer while in custody. However, he was not granted bail afterward.

Keeping a person who needs medical treatment physically restrained for an extended period violates the Constitution and treaties.

Judges' decisions are not an unforgivable domain.

In a 1982 ruling, the Supreme Court stated that the state is not liable for damages simply because a judge made an error in their judgment. It then established a standard that liability can only be recognized if there are "special circumstances in which it can be recognized that the judge exercised their authority in a manner clearly contrary to the purpose of that authority, such as when the judge made a judgment with an illegal or improper purpose."

However, this ruling is fundamentally out of step with modern times, where even the responsibility for legislative inaction is recognized within the framework of the National Compensation Act.

Furthermore, this ruling is based on the premise of a normal trial in which both parties are given ample opportunity to present their arguments and evidence.

On the other hand, the judges involved in Shizuo's arrest and detention made their decisions based solely on the documents submitted by the investigating authorities. These documents were not disclosed to the suspect or his lawyer. The suspect had to present his counterarguments without knowing the reasons or evidence, and was not given "an opportunity for both parties to adequately present their arguments and evidence."

The standards of the 1982 judgment cannot be directly applied to procedures that are fundamentally different from ordinary trials.

The criteria established in 1982 are close to the principle of state immunity (the state is not responsible) that was recognized under the pre-war sovereignty of the Emperor. We cannot accept such a framework for making decisions regarding detention or bail.

The judges' decisions must be rigorously judged to determine whether they were reasonable in light of the Constitution, treaties, and laws.

▲ "Our respect and trust in judges have been betrayed. We hope this will be an opportunity for the judiciary to recover," said Mr. Aishima's eldest son (left) and second son (Photo: Yoko Akiyoshi)

Social significance

When "hostage justice" is discussed, criticism tends to be directed at law enforcement agencies.

However, the ultimate decision rests with the judges.

An arrest warrant is issued by a judge.
It is the judge who issues the detention order.
It is the judge who decides whether or not to grant the bail request.

If judges properly understand the importance of personal liberty and correctly interpret and apply the Constitution, treaties, and laws, then "hostage justice" would never arise.

Most judges in Japan assume that someone who denies being accused of a crime may hide evidence or flee. There is no presumption of innocence in this case.

From the moment judges determine that there is sufficient suspicion, which is the first requirement for physical restraint, judges presume guilt. If someone is guilty but refuses to admit guilt, they are assumed to be hiding evidence or fleeing in order to escape punishment. The act of an innocent person consulting with those involved in preparation for their defense is viewed as a guilty person colluding to fabricate false testimony in order to escape punishment. As a result, the physical restraint of someone who does not admit guilt is prolonged.

That preconception doesn't change even when the person is diagnosed with a fatal illness. Shizuo was diagnosed with a malignant tumor in October 2020, but he was neither released on bail nor released from custody until he died of stomach cancer the following February.

During this time, not a single judge involved personally canceled the detention; instead, they mechanically extended the detention and denied bail.

Even when the elderly technician had to be hospitalized in a specialized hospital for treatment, the judges continued to believe that Shizuo would flee or destroy evidence.

Shizuo was arrested on completely unfounded charges, and 37 judges continued to deprive him of his physical liberty until his death from stomach cancer. That judgment violates the Constitution, treaties, and laws.

This lawsuit aims to fundamentally reform Japan's criminal justice system, restore the rule of law, put an end to "hostage justice," and prevent victims like Shizuo from ever being created again.

▲Shizuo was finally able to be hospitalized while his detention was suspended. However, he was told by his doctor that he had only a short time left to live (Photo: Provided by the plaintiff)

Messages of support  

Use of Donations  

• Court costs: Actual expenses paid to the court, such as revenue stamp fees (approximately 550,000 yen) and prepaid postage stamps (approximately 10,000 yen).
• Actual costs incurred for collecting materials: fees for copying court documents and fees for various submitted documents, etc.
• Other actual expenses: These include transportation costs for the plaintiff to appear in court, and transportation costs for experts and others to visit the court.
• Event hosting and publicity expenses: We would like to use the donations to cover the costs of events and publicity related to this trial.
• Legal fees, etc.: We intend to use these funds for retainer fees, success fees, and daily allowances for travel expenses for the legal team members.

About the legal team  

Takashi Takano (Takano Law Office)
Kyoko Yoshida (same)
Toshiki Nanri (same)
Daisuke Igeta (Miyamura & Igeta Law Office, Secretary General of LEDGE, a general incorporated association)
Seiho Cho (Kollect Arts Law Office)
Motoki Taniguchi (Tokyo Public Law Office, Attorney at Law; Director, LEDGE Association)
Yoshitaka Toda (LEDGE Law Firm)
Koji Joshi(Goto & Shinyu Law Office)
Akihiro Haichi(same)
Takamichi Yanai (Kita-Senju Public Law Office)

About LEDGE  

LEDGE is a team of experts specializing in the strategic production of public litigation. This lawsuit is supported by LEDGE (some of the legal team members are LEDGE members).

We also post the latest information on this lawsuit on the official social media accounts listed below, so please follow us if you're interested.

LEDGE Official Website

Official X (formerly Twitter)

Official Instagram