The plaintiffs, dissatisfied with the high court ruling that did not recognize a causal relationship to the death, filed a notice of appeal and a petition for acceptance of appeal on May 30, 2024.

The notice of filing of appeal and acceptance of appeal was received on June 4th, and a statement of reasons must be submitted within 50 days from that date (Civil Procedure Rules, Article 194).

Once the explanation has been submitted, it will be posted here again.

After the statement of reasons is submitted, the case will be submitted to the Supreme Court for written review. If there is a possibility that the high court decision will be reviewed, oral arguments are usually held at the Supreme Court. However, it is overwhelmingly more common for a dismissal decision to be suddenly sent out in about one to three months after the statement of reasons is submitted. There are very few lawyers who have argued in the Supreme Court, and the vast majority never do so.

When a decision will be made or whether the Supreme Court will notify us that an oral argument date will be set varies from case to case, so it is completely unpredictable, and the court will not tell you even if you ask.

The appeal court ruling has been handed down. As has already been reported, the court dismissed the appeals of both the plaintiffs and the government, upholding the conclusion of the first instance ruling.

There are many unsatisfactory aspects to this ruling, such as the fact that a causal relationship with the death was not recognized, but it is certainly the first ruling at the high court level to acknowledge state responsibility in a case involving death in immigration detention, and in that sense I believe it deserves praise.

[Plaintiff of first instance]

・Appeal second preparatory document dated January 9, 2024 Supplementation of arguments based on previous witness examination

・Third appellate preparatory document dated January 19, 2024 Refutation of the first instance defendant's preparatory document (2)

・Kou75～79

[First instance defendant]

・Preparatory document dated January 9, 2024 (2)

As there was no further argument or proof on either side, the argument was concluded and a judgment was handed down at the next time.

On March 29, 2014, an immigration officer who was working in the rest room where the deceased Mr. W was located was questioned as a witness.

The audience seats of about 40 people were almost full. Thank you for your support!

The next hearing is scheduled for January 23, 2024 from 2:00 p.m.

The government submitted the following written opinion during the deadline. When we submitted a counterargument, the court said that it would be held in a way that would be visible to the audience.

Also, during the deadline, the plaintiff of the first instance also applied for questioning of an immigration official as a witness.

Next time, the state will conduct questioning for 30 minutes, and the plaintiff of the first instance will conduct questioning for 60 minutes.

Next session will be on October 12th from 2:00 pm - Courtroom No. 717

[About the method of questioning witnesses]

State side: When showing the video during interrogation, I would like it to be made so that it is not visible to the audience. Security issues arise and there is a risk that witnesses may not be able to testify properly.

We: This violates the principle of open trial. Absolutely against it.

Court: The government should compile its opinion in writing by the next time.

Discussing the cross-examination of witnesses by immigration control officers

[Witness application from the plaintiff of the first instance]

Court: Will the plaintiff of the first instance also apply as a witness?

→Yes. Submit a witness application by the next meeting.

[Regarding the method of questioning witnesses]

Government side: When showing the video during the interrogation, please do not show it to the audience. It creates security problems and the risk that witnesses will not testify properly.

Me: It goes against the principle of open trial. Absolutely against.

Tribunal: The state side should summarize their opinions in writing by the next meeting.

Date of next consultation

July 11, 16:00-Tokyo High Court

[Plaintiff of the first instance] Submission of the first brief of the appeal and written opinion on the immigration officials' request for examination of witnesses

[Defendant of the First Instance] Brief dated April 7, 2023 (1), Otsu No. 36 (Immigration Control Officer Statement)

【court】

The plaintiff of the first instance has expressed the opinion that the examination of witnesses is unnecessary, but the court believes that it is necessary. Next time, in order to discuss the method and time of the interrogation, it will be designated as a progress discussion date.

[Next date]

May 31, 13:30- High Court 24th Civil Division

February 16, 2023 (Thursday) 15:00-Tokyo High Court Court No. 717

[Attorneys for the plaintiff in the first instance] Kodama, Ikuta, Uragi, Takahashi, Honda

[Representatives of the defendant in the first instance] 6

[Documents to be submitted]

Plaintiff side of the first instance: Written appeal, statement of grounds for appeal, written answer to the statement of grounds for appeal by the government Evidence Kou 61-74

Defendant of the first instance: Written appeal, statement of reasons for appeal, written answer to the statement of reasons for appeal by the government Evidence Otsu 28-35, personal identification (Immigration control officer who was on site on the day)

[Plaintiff's Counsel for the First Instance Statement] Kodama

【Until next time】

Both sides argue against the allegations in the written answer (until April 7)

Consolidating opinions on national identification applications

Next date April 27 (Thursday) 11:00 am Tokyo High Court No. 717 court

2022/11/17 We submitted the plaintiff's grounds for appeal and evidence (Ko 61-66) to the Tokyo High Court (24th Civil Division) and the other party.

The plaintiff mailed a letter of appeal to the Mito District Court dated September 27, 2022. The reason for the appeal is that the cause and effect relationship with the death was not recognized, but the detailed reason will be clarified in the appeal statement to be submitted in the future.