The 4th oral argument was held at the Tokyo District Court No. 703 at 1:30 pm on Thursday, March 24, 2022. It has been more than eight months since the suit was filed on July 19, 2021. The defendant finally came up with a brief stating the reason for non-disclosure to some extent.

Looking back on the process so far,

January 27, 2020 Frontline Press Requests Information Disclosure

February 26, 2020 Japan Transport Safety Board Secretary General "Disclosure" decision

In fact, we only "published" the documents that had already been published on the Internet, and did not publish any documents that requested information disclosure.

May 22, 2020 Frontline Press Requests Examination

December 25, 2020 Information Disclosure / Personal Information Protection Examination Committee (*), report that disposal is appropriate

* Members: Toshiyuki Fujitani, Sayoko Izumimoto, Tetsu Isobe

January 22, 2021 Japan Transport Safety Board Chairman, decision to dismiss claim

July 19, 2021 Frontline Press filed suit

It has been more than two years since Frontline Press requested information disclosure.

If the Japan Transport Safety Board had been seriously considering the scope and reasons for non-disclosure from the beginning, it would not take so long to answer. You should be able to write in detail at the time of the first non-disclosure decision. We can't do that because we didn't take it seriously at the time of our first non-disclosure decision.

It's been a long time since the complaint was filed, because the Japan Transport Safety Board did not even ask the Japan Transport Safety Board to create a bone index (individual non-disclosure points and grounds / reasons for non-disclosure). (Maybe you didn't read the billing document itself?), And gave the endorsement that "you don't have to disclose anything."

Even at the stage of the 4th oral argument date, all "survey materials (excluding published materials) collected and used by the Japan Transport Safety Board to prepare reports" are not disclosed, and a list of material items for these survey materials. Even (the title of the document) is still heavily inked and has not even reached the bone index stage.

It can be said that the unscrupulous operation of the examination committee supports the passive operation of the information disclosure system of government agencies.

In addition, the Secretary-General of the Japan Transport Safety Board changed the reason for non-disclosure in the notice dated March 17, 2022. There is no new explanation regarding the non-disclosure of all the contents of the study materials, and there are four types of information in the document list of materials ((1) hearing information from related parties, (2) factual information on accidents, (3) test research analysis information, and (4). The committee's deliberation information) was included, and it was stated that these corresponded to Article 5, Item 5 and Item 6 of the Information Disclosure Law.

I don't think it can be said that this explained the rational reason for non-disclosure (Article 5, Item 5, 6 Australian Pillars of the Information Disclosure Law).

The next date is 11:45 am on Tuesday, May 17th.

It is the order in which the plaintiffs insist.

One is the change of complaint. On January 6, this year, the Secretary-General of the Japan Transport Safety Board made a new disclosure decision to reduce the scope of non-disclosure, and the issues in the trial were slightly less than when the complaint was filed. In that connection, the plaintiffs have decided to change their complaints.

The other is a counterargument to the defendant's briefs (2) and (3). I would like to make a claim that can further narrow the scope of the target document.

From 10:30 am on January 27, 2022, there was a third oral argument date at the Tokyo District Court No. 703 court. The last date was November 18th last year, so it's been 2 months and 9 days since then.

There was a drama during this time. Rather, the non-disclosure disposition of the Disposal Agency (Japan Transport Safety Board) was so crude that the Disposal Agency had to review the original disposition. It is the review period. Then, on January 6, this year, the Disposal Agency decided to review the original disposal and disclose a part of the title of the possessed document.

As a result, all information was not disclosed (although the decision stated that it was "disclosure decision", the fact is that the information was only "disclosed", so it is meaningless to request information disclosure.) " Part of the "List of Material Items" (of the survey materials collected and used by the Japan Transport Safety Board to prepare the report regarding the sinking accident of the 58th Suwamaru fishing vessel that occurred on June 23, 2008) was disclosed. It was decided to do so.

However, regarding the part requesting disclosure of "all the investigation materials collected and used by the Japan Transport Safety Board to prepare the report", even if it is redoed, all documents other than those published on the Internet will be disclosed. did not.

Only the title was disclosed, so I don't know what it is. There were still a lot of things that were still painted with black ink. All the seaweed valves have holes in some places.

Well, this can be evaluated as some progress. But then, what is the reason for not disclosing each part that is still blackened? However, the Disposal Agency has written an abstract reason that is almost the same as the reason for non-disclosure of the original disposition. eh! !! !! I haven't added the reason.

On the third date, the plaintiff's attorney, Mr. Shimizu, explained the reason for non-disclosure about the non-disclosure part of the redoing disposition because it was too abstract. Since I do not know at all whether it corresponds to the reason for non-disclosure specified by, I would like you to rewrite it to clarify the reason for non-disclosure of each inked part, otherwise the plaintiff will be convinced of which non-disclosure and which non-disclosure He pointed out that he could not judge whether the disclosure was convincing.

The court justified the plaintiff's point and asked the defendant's designated agent to reconsider this point with the Disposal Agency.

Perhaps the defendant's designated agent did not immediately understand the meaning, he will not redo the disposition anymore, and he will argue again in writing about the reason for non-disclosure, so if the plaintiff argues, it should be done afterwards. Said.

The presiding judge once convinced that this was the case, and turned to the plaintiff's agent, saying that the defendant had no intention of changing the status quo, so the plaintiff should issue a brief to prepare for the counterargument at this stage. I asked if there was one. If the defendant does not change the content of the disposition any more and the reason for non-disclosure remains the same, I thought that the plaintiff would have no choice but to write a brief for the counterargument on the premise of this.

However, no, when I think about it for a moment, it's impossible. I had an intuition that I couldn't write a counterargument as it was. Because I don't even know the title of the document, I don't know the contents at all, and there is no reason for not disclosing each blackened part, so as a plaintiff, each one is not disclosed under the Information Disclosure Law. There is no way to consider whether or not it corresponds to the reason. As I imagined and wrote about it, the defendant looking at the target document does not know what kind of information the court is in dispute just by repeating the abstract theory as usual. It will be an empty allegation and the court procedure will be wasted.

It seems that the presiding judge also understands, and the plaintiff's point is understandable, so the disposition agency first received the plaintiff's point and stated the reason for non-disclosure in the disposition notice of redoing to the defendant's designated agent. I asked him to review the contents of the explanation, and asked him again that he could write it like a bone index, and asked how long it would take.

The three designated agents in the defendant's seat were so entrenched that they didn't expect the presiding judge to say this. The designated agent, who seems to be the chief, called out to the other two designated agents, saying that they probably had no choice but to respond to the request of the presiding judge, and how long would it take to prepare? I think I was talking. If the presiding judge's order is expected, the preparation period is considered in advance, so the agents can agree with each other in a few seconds. However, this secret story is rather long. 30 seconds, 40 seconds or more? It took a long time anyway. As a result, we have decided to submit a revised version of the explanation of the reason for non-disclosure by March 15.

The next date is Court No. 703 at 1:30 pm on March 24th.

It seems that it will continue to be difficult to make the operation of the Japan Transport Safety Board open.

The second oral argument was due at the Tokyo District Court No. 703 from 10:30 am on November 18, 2021.

Usually, at the first oral argument, at the latest on the second oral argument date, the defendant is supposed to issue a brief stating the approval / disapproval and the main argument against the plaintiff's complaint. ..

On this day, the brief (1) submitted by the defendant (Secretary General of the Japan Transport Safety Board) had 26 pages. I wondered if the contents were fulfilling, but the prediction was wrong.

The approval or disapproval of the complaint is on page 3, and when you read on, "Summary of the case", "About the ship accident investigation by the Japan Transport Safety Board", and "Factual progress". The plaintiffs repeatedly wrote in the complaint, spending seven pages. What surprised me more was beyond that. He developed his own theory over 11 pages about the ideal way of judicial review and trial in information disclosure proceedings. So, the detailed allegations regarding the non-disclosure disposition, which is essential, have been announced in the next brief.

According to Deguchi, a lawyer who has filed several proceedings to disclose information against the country, this proprietary theory is a standard claim that almost always appears in recent national documents (also posted on the CALL 4 site. issued by the country in the information disclosure lawsuit of secret personal information file book "held by the national Police Agency written reply and claimed 10 pages following, this time of the defendant briefs (1) I want you to try to compare the 15 pages following claims).

Roughly summarizing, when the court hears whether the non-disclosure part by the administrative agency really corresponds to the non-disclosure reason stipulated by the Information Disclosure Law, the national government leaves the description of the non-disclosure part typologically and abstractly. It is assumed that the court will make a general typographical judgment based on this. In other words, the court should not go to the scene of administrative practice.

The judicial precedent cited by the defendant as the basis of the allegation is 27 years ago (1994), and the document submitted as documentary evidence is also 20 years ago (2001). Do not provide evidence of recent case law or literature. At what level is the country trying to make a trial? It's strange.

Judges are accustomed to information disclosure proceedings because the Tokyo District Court handles administrative cases in the specialized department. You've probably seen the same claim over and over again. The presiding judge is not interested in the state's allegations. I asked the defendant, "When will you make a counterargument?" From the point of view, the country should be able to argue immediately. The Japan Transport Safety Board should have been scrutinizing the reasons for non-disclosure immediately after receiving a request for information disclosure from the plaintiff in January last year. The Japan Transport Safety Board should have explained the reason for non-disclosure to the Information Disclosure / Personal Information Protection Examination Committee because the plaintiff filed a complaint against the non-disclosure decision. If the plaintiff filed a proceeding, the Japan Transport Safety Board would just have to repeat what it had decided before. The question of the presiding judge is natural. It can't take time to prepare.

However, there, the three defendants' agents faced each other and began to discuss when to write the document. Yeah, didn't you decide? Soon after, one of the designated agents replied, "I will submit it in January." The presiding judge didn't say anything, but he was surprised even through the mask. It seems that it will take a long time for the defendant's prolongation tactics, but he asked if he was thinking about revising his decision. It sounded like I was asking you to disclose it even partially.

The designated representative of the country replied that it was re-examining the contents of the original non-disclosure disposition. In words alone, it sounds like he's responding to the presiding judge's guidance, but since it's the country that made such a terrible claim in the first brief, the next claim may add a new reason for non-disclosure. It may be more realistic to think about it.

The next date is Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 10:30 am at the Tokyo District Court No. 703. (Tsutomu Shimizu)

The first oral argument was held at Tokyo District Court No. 703 at 10:30 am on Tuesday, October 5, 2021.

After confirming that the plaintiff had filed the complaint and the defendant had submitted the answer, the next date was decided to be 10:30 am on Thursday, November 18, and it ended in a short time.

The answer submitted by the defendant (country) was only to dispute the plaintiff's claim, and the objection to the complaint and the defendant's allegation would be submitted at a later date.

In an information disclosure proceeding, it is unusual for a designated representative of the state to submit only a simple answer without refuting the complaint by the first due date.

I would like to pay attention to what kind of documents the country will submit by the next deadline.