*Translated by Google translate

Introduction

One of the plaintiffs in this case wore rainbow socks while attending the hearing of the same-sex marriage lawsuit, and the other two wore badges of support groups and hoodies with the word "HAKAMADA" while attending the hearing and defending the Hakamada case retrial. These were items that held special meaning for the plaintiffs, but the presiding judge ordered them to hide or remove them. This case is seeking state compensation, arguing that the presiding judge's orders regarding the clothing and accessories of spectators and lawyers were illegal.

Would you feel that it is just a matter of a few socks, or that the courtroom is a solemn place and you should follow the judge's instructions?
However, a courtroom is an open forum, and the right of plaintiffs and their legal team to wear important items should not be restricted without reason.
The presiding judge's powers are there to maintain order in the courtroom. A little badge or a pair of socks does not disrupt order.

This case questions the limits of the presiding judge's ability to exercise his or her powers in an open courtroom.

▲ November 13, 2024: Filed in the Tokyo District Court

Overview of the case

The trial concerns the lawfulness of the presiding judge's orders in three cases.

1. Same-Sex Marriage Fukuoka Lawsuit

The first is the Fukuoka Same-Sex Marriage Lawsuit. The plaintiff, Suzuki-san, tried to enter the courtroom wearing rainbow socks while attending the "Freedom of Marriage for All" lawsuit.

▲The socks that Suzuki was wearing while attending the hearing

A court official then ordered Suzuki to cover the rainbow pattern if he wanted to enter the courtroom. Suzuki had no choice but to comply with the order in order to attend the trial he had supported for a long time.

For Suzuki, the rainbow pattern is not just a design. Suzuki is a legal scholar who studies the protection of the rights of sexual minorities, and as a sexual minority himself, he supported the "Freedom of Marriage for All" lawsuit. The rainbow pattern also symbolizes the identity of sexual minorities and the solidarity of those involved and their supporters.
For Suzuki, the rainbow pattern symbolized her own identity and was a sign of solidarity with other sexual minorities in the lawsuit that was her life's work.

2. Hakamada False Accusation Case①

The second is a court order regarding the so-called Hakamada false accusation case.

The plaintiff, Shimizu, is a long-time supporter of Hakamada and the representative of the Hakamada Supporters Club. When Shimizu attempted to observe the retrial of the Hakamada case, court officials ordered him to remove his Supporters Club badge and cover the "HAKAMADA" lettering on his hoodie with masking tape if he wanted to observe.

After being rejected several times, Shimizu was finally able to sit in on the 14th hearing, but he couldn't give up and took off his badge. The word "HAKAMADA" was covered with multiple layers of masking tape.

▲ A hoodie with the words "FREE HAKAMADA" on the back

The badge was designed by Shimizu, the representative of the Supporters Club, as a symbol of their support activities and was worn regularly. The badge was a symbol of their identity as supporters, their memory of Hakamada, and their solidarity with other supporters. The court order targeted the badge and the hoodie worn in this context.

3. Hakamada False Accusation Case②

The third is also related to the Hakamada false accusation case.

The plaintiff's lawyer, Ogawa, was the lead defense lawyer for Mr. Hakamada, and had been wearing the Supporters Club badge since the first retrial hearing. However, at the 14th hearing, the presiding judge suddenly ordered him to remove the badge. After that hearing, Ogawa protested, but his protest was not accepted, and from the 15th hearing onwards, he was forced to remove the badge and continue his defense activities in order to avoid disrupting the trial.

For Attorney Ogawa, the badge has an important meaning. Soon after becoming a lawyer, Attorney Ogawa worked hard for about 40 years to start a retrial of the Hakamada case, and his defense work was only possible with the cooperation of his supporters. For Attorney Ogawa, the badge symbolized his identity, and wearing the badge was also part of his activities as a defense lawyer.

▲Hakamada Supporters Club badge

The issues in this lawsuit

The lawsuit is about whether a judge's order requiring Suzuki, Shimizu and Ogawa to hide the writing on their socks, badges and hoodies violates the law.

The basis for a judge to order spectators regarding their attire is thought to be court police power. Court police power is the authority granted to the presiding judge in charge of a particular hearing in order to maintain "order" in the courtroom, and is stipulated in Article 71, Paragraph 1 of the Court Act.

However, court police powers cannot be exercised without limitations. Legally, those who can be subject to orders are limited to those who 1) "hinder the execution of the court's duties in court" or 2) "behave unlawfully."

In practice, the specific details are as follows:

Regarding ①, this refers to "acts that disrupt the quiet and orderly progress of courtroom proceedings," such as assault, abusive language, or disruptive behavior against those involved in the litigation.

② "Inappropriate behavior" refers to actions, attitudes, or clothing that lack the "decency that should generally be observed in a courtroom," such as entering the courtroom in an intoxicated state, eating, drinking, or smoking in the courtroom, wearing strange clothing, and using abusive language or assault.

The plaintiffs were merely attempting to attend the hearing peacefully and to engage in the necessary legal activities as defense attorneys, and their actions cannot be considered to have "interfered with the court's performance of its duties in court."
In addition, wearing commercially available rainbow patterned socks, wearing small badges measuring approximately 2 cm in diameter, and supporters of retrial cases wearing hoodies to show their support are all commonplace in society and do not constitute "inappropriate behavior."

It is argued that the presiding judge's exercise of court police powers ignores the requirements of law and is therefore illegal.

Social significance

1. Restraining excessive use of court-police powers and upholding the principle of open trials

First, this lawsuit is significant in that it serves to curb the excessive exercise of court-police power and uphold the principle of open trials. Courts are essentially open places.

Hearing about observing a trial may conjure up a stiff image, but there is no problem with attending in light clothing, and as long as you do not interfere with the smooth running of the trial or the observation of other spectators, you are allowed to do so freely. Excessive use of regulatory power restricts even the freedoms that should be allowed, and goes against the Constitution's requirement of open courts.

2. Maintaining public confidence in the judiciary

Secondly, it is significant in maintaining public confidence in the judiciary.

Truly open trials allow the public to keep an eye on the judges, which leads to expectations of honesty and restraint from other litigants. Only when such an environment is in place can rich and fair arguments be guaranteed and trust in the judiciary be built. If we allow the abuse of courtroom police powers or the practice of not being able to observe trials unless orders are followed, the principle of open trials will be weakened, and it could even become possible for the presiding judge to select observers and for secret trials to become the norm.
In addition, if people who are interested in trials are reluctant to attend because they believe that attending trials is troublesome, bothersome and stressful, public trust in the judiciary could be undermined.

3. Ensure that the right of counsel to defend a defendant is not threatened

Thirdly, it serves the purpose of ensuring that the lawyer's right to defense is not threatened.

The right to counsel is a constitutionally recognized right for the defendant to have a lawyer to protect his or her interests in criminal proceedings.
The right of a defense lawyer to represent the defendant is essential for a criminal trial in which the defendant and the prosecutor are on an equal footing. If the abuse of court-police powers were permitted, defense lawyers would have no choice but to compromise and cooperate with the court, which would hinder their defense activities.
In other words, abuse of court-police powers could restrict the right to defense and prevent defense attorneys from fulfilling their primary responsibility of protecting the interests of the defendant.

From these three perspectives, our goal through this lawsuit is to put a stop to the excessive exercise of court-police powers and realize a more open judicial system.

Use of funds

It is used for all litigation activities.
The main expenses are actual costs such as litigation fees and copying costs, fees for requesting opinions from experts such as constitutional scholars, and travel costs for the plaintiffs.

Plaintiff’s thoughts

Plaintiff: Ken Suzuki (legal scholar)

Plaintiff: Kazuto Shimizu (representative of the Hakamada Supporters Club)

Plaintiff Hideyo Ogawa (Secretary-General of the Hakamada Case Defense Team)

Message from the lawyer in charge

Order in the courtroom is of course important, but it must not ignore the principle of open trial or the provisions of the law.
Through this lawsuit, we hope to reexamine the meaning of "order" and create an open court that is open to citizens.

Head of defense team: Michiko Kameishi

Defense team

Michiko Kameishi (Representative Director of Eclat Umeda Law Office and LEDGE General Incorporated Association)
Yasutaka Mizuno (Yasutaka Mizuno Law Offices, LEDGE Partners General Incorporated Association)
Daisuke Igeta (Miyamura & Igeta Law Firm, General Secretary of LEDGE Association)
Yutaro Kato (Nagashima, Ohno & Tsunematsu Law Office)
Taiki Taniguchi (Tokyo Public Law Office, Director of LEDGE Association)
Yoshiyasu Toda (LEDGE Law Office)

About LEDGE

LEDGE is a team of specialists created to support specific public litigation cases.
This lawsuit is supported by LEDGE (some of the legal team in this lawsuit are members of LEDGE).

We will also be posting the latest information on open court litigation on the official website and social media accounts listed below, so please follow us if you are interested.
LEDGE Official Website / Official X (formerly Twitter) / Official Instagram