Click here for Zoom. Registration is required. We apologize for the short notice.

https://us02web.zoom.us/webina r/register/WN__vHjfSP4SD-RwosCNY6mcQ

Thank you for your continued support.

Regarding this matter, the Tokyo High Court issued an appeal judgment yesterday. It was a partially favorable decision with a wider scope of disclosure than the first-instance decision.

We will hold an online debriefing session on the summary of the judgment as follows.

Please join us.

"National Police Agency Secret Personal Information File Book Information Disclosure Litigation Tokyo High Court Decision Report Meeting"

[Date and time] May 22 , 2023 ( Monday ) 20 : 00-21 : 00
[Holding method] Online ( ZOOM )

On February 6, 2023, at 3:30 p.m., an oral argument was held in Courtroom 809 of the Tokyo High Court.

I have submitted the 4th brief and some procedural documents.

I asked the country to explain in the brief, but the country replied that it was not necessary to respond.

The court asked both sides if there was any further evidence to prove their claims, and they answered that there was none, and the trial was concluded.

 Judgment will be handed down in Courtroom 809 on Wednesday, May 17, at 1:30 p.m.

 As far as the litigation has been conducted so far, it is expected that there will be a substantive judgment in line with the Supreme Court decision dated May 17, 2022. Please come to the hearing.

At 3:00 pm on December 14th, the 3rd Oral Argument Date was held at Courtroom 809 of the Tokyo High Court.

Country: Brief (2), Document of Evidence (2), Otsu 30

Me: Supplementary note

were submitted respectively.

First, it was confirmed that the other party also submitted a letter of consent to the withdrawal of the part that was partially disclosed (withdrawal dated September 20), and that the withdrawal took effect.

After that, there was a scene where the court requested the government to explain as follows.

Court: On page 14 of brief (2), there is a statement that "they are not identical." What does this mean? Does it mean that it is not the same due to additions and changes?

Country: The point is that it is not the same as it may be added and changed if the billing date is different.

Court: What about the name field?
Country: Same purpose

Court: The appellant requested that the grounds for non-disclosure be claimed for each piece of information rather than for each column.

Country: Exactly.

Based on this, the following exchange took place.

Court: What will the appellant do about this?

Me: I object. In addition, I would like to ask two questions regarding the presiding judge's request for clarification. When you say "they are not the same," do you mean that the form and content are not exactly the same as the remarks column of the document disclosed in another case, or do you mean that the form and content may be slightly different? . I'm not sure where the "any" is.

Court: Can you answer now?

Country: The purpose is that there are some differences in format and content, but I would like it in writing because I understand the question correctly.

Court: Appellants should submit clarifications with counterarguments.

Based on the above, the next 4th meeting was designated at 15:30 on February 6th, and it ended.

We plan to submit a document to refute the country's claims. Please continue to pay attention.

At 4:30 pm on September 21st, the second oral argument was held in Courtroom 809 of the Tokyo High Court.

Country: brief

Me: 1st preliminary document, 2nd preliminary document, 3rd preliminary document, Ko 44

were submitted respectively.

The court instructed the government to consider the response to the explanation we requested, in addition to the counterargument to our document.

Our explanation is to pursue that the government's claim is bankrupt regarding the difference between the part disclosed in the separate disclosure request and the part disclosed in this case, so the court also doubts the government's claim. It was suggested that

The government submitted the document by December 6th, and the third date will be held from 3:00 pm on December 14th with issue 809.

 It will be interesting to see what kind of counterarguments the government will make.

TBD

An information disclosure lawsuit that has been disputed at the Tokyo District Court with Clearinghouse as a plaintiff and demands the cancellation of the non-disclosure decision made by the National Police Agency and the obligatory disclosure.

There was a ruling on January 18, 2022, and we won partly. The pay ordered by the court to the government is about 60%.

The information disclosure proceedings for non-disclosure decisions due to obstacles to criminal investigations are difficult to win, but why did we win this time? There have been various circumstances leading up to this point.

Why did we win, what kind of document we were fighting for, what it meant to publish, what was the issue, etc. We would report such kind topics that had happened in this four years since our filing the lawsuit. 

Sorry for the short notice, It's from 8 o'clock today, but please join us. RSVP. 

Today, the Tokyo District Court's Civil Affairs Division 51 (Judge Chieko Shimizu) has handed down a ruling on this matter and told the National Police Agency to disclose more than 500 of the administrative documents that had not been disclosed. It is extremely rare for a request for information disclosure to the personal information file book held by the National Police Agency to be accepted, and it is expected that a scalpel will be included in the confidentiality of the National Police Agency.

 The judgment will be published in the proceedings record later.

 The ruling admits that the administrative agency has a wide range of discretion, but the National Police Agency's response to completely non-disclosure of items for which no risk due to disclosure is expected is said to be a deviation or abuse of the exercise of discretionary power.

 We hope that the National Police Agency will promptly disclose information based on the purpose of the decision.

 We would appreciate your continued support.

The oral argument date was held in Court No. 419 from 11:30 on July 8.

We have stated the 6th brief.

Because the country has individually organized the reasons for non-disclosure of 114 documents covered by the country and insisted on them in a table.

Documents for which there is no reason not to disclose in the first place should be disclosed,

Even if there is a reason to not disclose some items, other items should be disclosed.

He also argued that the reason for non-disclosure was insufficient proof.

The court ruled that the hearing was ripe and said it would like to end the argument and conclude the case.

In response, the state agent stated that he would like to refute our briefs, but said he had no plans to assert new legal theories or facts.

The court maintained its policy of closing, saying that it would see if it was submitted after the closing.

Since the complaint was filed in March 2018, the trial has continued for three and a half years due to the corona illness, but the decision is finally reached.

I would be grateful if you could pay attention to whether the National Police Agency will open a hole in the rough and excessive non-disclosure response.

The government has submitted a brief (6).

This content supplements the allegation of reasons for non-disclosure in the previously submitted brief (5).

The court has instructed us to update the contents of the list attached to the brief (5) to reflect the allegations in (6).

The government will update and submit it by May 21st.

The plaintiff will submit a written counterargument by June 21st.

The next date will be held at Court No. 419 for the first time in a long time from 11:30 on July 8.

It's finally the final game. Please come and listen.