■2023.12.12 The 7th Oral Argument of the Appeal Court has concluded.

Professor Sanehara's witness examination The courtroom is full

Judgment will be made on May 16, 2024 (Thursday) 15:20 ~ Nagoya High Court Courtroom No. 1

On this day, there was a witness examination of Takashi Sanehara, a professor at Nanzan University Graduate School of Law, and there was a strong possibility that the trial would be concluded after that, so I really wanted to fill the courtroom.

Thanks to your support, over 100 people came to visit us. The courtroom was full, and at times staff members were forced to give up seats. We would like to thank everyone who came to watch despite the morning rain.

[Video]https://youtu.be/7dBwr314H7I

Takashi Sanehara, professor at Nanzan University Graduate School of Law, was questioned as a witness. The content was very fulfilling and deepened the opinion paper. There was no cross-examination from the defendant's side, and the presiding judge asked follow-up questions about ``information that itself cannot be said to have a high level of privacy.''

Through his testimony, Professor Sanehara stated the following regarding the nature of constitutional review.

[While this case directly concerns the "exchange of information" between Ogaki Police Station and Seatech, we understand that it is a case where the provision, collection, and possession of personal information by the police is at issue. Therefore, it raises the question of constitutional issues regarding the handling of personal information by public institutions. ] [``Protection of rights'', ``infringement of rights'', and ``legitimacy of rights infringement'' will be considered in sequence. ] [First, it is recognized that there is a serious violation of rights through the collection of information by the police. ] [``Identification and appropriateness of the purpose'', ``necessity and appropriateness of the means'', and ``institutional mechanisms to ensure that the means are not inappropriate'' will be considered. ] [If the purpose cannot be specified, the legitimacy cannot be examined. At this stage, it is no longer possible to move on to examining the legitimacy of the purpose, so the examination of constitutionality ends here. The collection of information by the police cannot be justified and is therefore unconstitutional. ]

Afterwards, attorney Yokoyama presented a written opinion regarding the rejection of the police witness examination, and expressed his request to the court.

When asked by the presiding judge, ``Are you going to submit a final written statement?'' he answered, ``I believe that I have made my case sufficiently.'' The court seemed to have been thinking about including a date for the final argument, and seemed to be a little flustered. A discussion was held in the back of the house regarding the day the verdict would be handed down.

The judgment will be handed down on May 16th (Thursday) from 3:20 pm at Nagoya High Court Courtroom No. 1 .

At the conclusion of the trial, each of the plaintiffs of the first instance made brief statements (Mr. Matsushima, who was absent due to poor health, read out what he had given to his attorney in advance). → Appellate court materials and statement of opinion of the plaintiff of the first instance

At the debriefing session, lawyer Hideki Yamada gave an explanation of the entire courtroom that day, and since the trial concluded on that day, the judgment will be written by the court on that day, which is a groundbreaking ruling in the trial to lower welfare standards. He said that he had high expectations for the project. Attorney Fumio Yokoyama expressed his opinion and impressions about the ``wall'' in the Civil Procedure Code that has prevented the interrogation of police witnesses. It is certain that the court was informed that the defendant was trying to conceal the truth of the incident.

Afterwards, each lawyer expressed their impressions of the appeal trial.

【movie】  https://youtu.be/7dBwr314H7I

Documents are → Appellate trial materials

A member of the media asked, ``Do you think that the prefecture and the country, which neither admit or deny nor make a legitimate claim, are willing to lose in court?'' It is true that they would rather compensate (pay money) at the level of saying, ``Providing information on this matter was a mistake'' than reveal even a part of the activities of the public security police. Sho. This is why we were able to reaffirm the importance of winning a judgment that goes beyond the first instance, and the need for our movement to expand and not be limited to ``the judgment of this case.''

The meeting concluded with remarks from the plaintiffs and words of gratitude from co-representative Toi Inaba.

Newspaper page dated December 13, 2023

(Asahi Shimbun, Gifu Shimbun, Chunichi Shimbun)

■2023.10.5 6th oral argument in the appellate court

Next time, Professor Sanehara will be questioned as a witness, and the ``change of complaint'' will be approved.

After a long, hot summer, we can finally feel the signs of autumn. The rain that had fallen in the morning had subsided, and we were able to hold a mini-meeting in front of the Nagoya High Court.

After heading towards the courthouse and calling out the items on the request postcard*, we moved on to the procession to enter the courthouse.

*Over 200 postcards were collected by the secretariat and submitted to the High Court. I have heard that there are many items that have been mailed with stamps attached.

Videohttps://youtu.be/5mIFMvPClts

Documents → Appeals trial materials

In court, it was revealed that the court had taken steps to request ``approval'' under Article 191 of the Civil Procedure Code for the questioning of four witnesses out of the eight public security police officers requested by the plaintiff. (Miwa, Sakagami, and Yokoyama for the Gifu Prefectural Police, and Takahashi, former head of the National Police Agency's Security Bureau for the National Police Agency. Regarding the attributes of these four people, please refer to the court materials of the 5th oral argument, ``Offering Evidence Form.'' (See “Application for Witness”).

Attorney Fumio Yokoyama gave an oral opinion on the ``Supplementary Statement of Evidence'' submitted by the plaintiff, based on the written opinion from the defendant of the first instance (requiring that police witnesses are unnecessary and not hired). The questions to be examined should be sorted out to make the necessity of questioning clearer, and even if a higher authority disapproves of the questions, the court should decide to recruit witnesses and conduct the questions.It should be possible. , it is something that approaches. It also has the meaning of deepening the 9th appeal brief.

The presiding judge announced the hiring of Takashi Sanehara, a professor at Nanzan University Graduate School of Law, as a witness, and took a positive stance by setting aside a ``frame'' for police officer questioning of witnesses.

In addition, regarding the ``change of the complaint'' regarding the request for deletion of personal information, we rejected the opinion from the defendant of the first instance that ``it should not be allowed,'' and instead decided to ``permit.'' He then ordered the defendant of the first instance to thoroughly explain whether or not he approved the change in the complaint.

More than 60 people participated in both the courtroom and the debriefing session. Thank you very much.

The next step is to examine witnesses. A large courtroom has been secured. Please come and visit the court.

★Next oral argument: December 12th (Tuesday) from 10:00 am Nagoya High Court Courtroom No. 1

Witness examination of Takashi Sanehara, professor at Nanzan University Graduate School of Law

In the rainy weather, we held a preliminary meeting (entering the court) for a short time.

About 60 people attended both the hearing and the debriefing meeting (Nagoya City Noh Theater). thank you.

【movie】  https://youtu.be/0zi123PoZPk

In the courtroom, Attorney Fumio Yokoyama read out the gist of the 9th Preliminary Document ~Persons who have the authority to determine whether a civil servant is a "professional secret"~. In the first instance, the police officer's witness was rejected on the grounds that Article 191 of the Code of Civil Procedure could not obtain "approval by a higher authority." This is a document that argues, based on judicial precedents and academic theories, that it is clearly strange that the government's systematic illegal acts by public officials are strongly suspected in lawsuits claiming state reparations, and that the fact that the facts are not clarified by "not acknowledging" goes unnoticed.

In the previous court, it can be interpreted that the court requested a more detailed "specification" of the cancellation request and urged "a change in the purpose of the request," so we "changed the appeal" in response to that request.

The defendant of the first instance has not made any counterarguments to the plaintiff's documents so far. On the other hand, it is said that it will take two months to approve or disapprove of this "change in the purpose of the claim." I don't think they are taking the lawsuit seriously.

I hope that the court will take a resolute stance in which the attitude of the defendant of the first instance does not turn out to be "advantageous."

Documents submitted (including the “summary” read out in court) → Appeal court materials

The next oral argument will be held on October 5 (Thursday) from 14:00 at Nagoya High Court Court No. 1

■ April 20, 2023 Appellate Court 4th Oral Argument Approaching the heart of the trial

It's the season where the fresh green shines.

Prior to entering the court, the 2,663 signatures collected to date were delivered to the clerk's office.

In the midst of the second half of the unified local elections, there were few participants from the Seino area, but some people from Nagoya rushed to the event, so we had a pre-meeting in front of the court (behavior to enter the court), cherry blossoms. About 60 people participated in the debriefing meetings at the hall. I would like to express my gratitude to everyone who rushed to the event despite their busy schedules.

[Video] https://youtu.be/fDlw2nHnB3M

Documents submitted (including the “summary” read out in court) → Appeal court materials

After the court, a debriefing meeting was held at the Ouka Kaikan.

(Please see the 4 minutes ofthe "Video" . It is organized.)

First, Attorney Hideki Yamada gave a brief report on the court proceedings that day, and then Attorneys Yoshimoto Ota and Naoki Tarui, who made the main statements, each provided supplementary explanations of the main points.

It was explained that Professor Mitsuhara's written opinion clearly indicates the content that should be examined by the judicial body of the High Court. In addition, in response to the way of thinking that could be called the mob theory of citizens' movements that underlies the decision to allow information collection in the original judgment, citizens' movements and social movements have brought it head-on, ``improve and advance society''. They shared their sympathy for the 8th Preliminary Statement, which stated its significance and stated, "The Constitution and international human rights law place great expectations on civil and social movements."

Furthermore, in the first instance, the defense team explained the current state of efforts regarding the examination of witnesses by police officers, which the court did not employ because it interpreted the Code of Civil Procedure in favor of the defendant.

As a "trailer" for the next round of oral arguments, it was reported that a document will be submitted in detail again regarding the erasure of retained personal information, and that the application for personal identification, including the interpretation of Article 191 of the civil lawsuit, will be submitted. .

It ended with a "word" from the attending attorney and plaintiff.

Next Appellate Trial 5th Oral Argument July 13, 2023 (Thursday) 14:00-Nagoya High Court Court No. 1

■ 2023.1.26 Appeal Trial 3rd Oral Argument Powerful reading

On this day as well, the courtroom seats were almost full. The powerful reading of the summary of the plaintiff's brief was worth listening to.

・Report of the day → Appeal court (Nagoya High Court)

・Documents submitted and read aloud in court → Appeal materials

The next oral argument will be held on Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 14:00.

Nagoya High Court Court No. 1

Documents submitted to the appeal are → Appeal materials

■ 2022.11.16 Appellate Court 2nd Oral Argument The audience seats are full

From the first oral argument, it was a meeting in front of the gate in the changing seasons and falling leaves.

Many people attended the hearing, and Court No. 1 was filled to capacity. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to those who came to visit us.

In court, the plaintiff of the first instance filed the First Appeal Preliminary Statement (“Collection of information focused on a specific individual is unconstitutional and illegal”) and the Second Appeal Preliminary Statement (“The collection of personal information is a compulsory disposition”). I read the abstract.

Documents submitted (including the “summary” read out in court) → Appeal court materials

The presiding judge asked both the plaintiff of the first instance and the defendant of the first instance about their plans for the next hearing.

The plaintiff of the first instance will issue another brief (unconstitutional and illegal to collect information without a legal basis), which was announced in the previous oral argument, and the rebuttal to the brief 1 issued by the defendant prefecture of the first instance next time. , I told him that I was prepared to submit a scholarly opinion by the end of the fiscal year, and that I wanted to interrogate the police, which was not possible in the first trial.

The defendant of the first instance said that it would consider a counterargument after the plaintiff of the first instance had allegations, and the defendant of the first instance replied, "There is no particular plan."

The presiding judge strongly urged the plaintiff of the first instance to submit the brief as soon as possible, as well as the scholar's opinion as soon as possible. I urged the defendant prefecture of the first instance to "provide a counterargument as soon as possible." I felt that he wanted to move the trial forward and write his own judgment.

At the debriefing session at Ouka Kaikan and Ouka no Ma, the defense team first explained the situation in court.

Attorney Nakatani, who is drafting a large draft of more than 50 pages, which is scheduled to be published next time, talked about the main points.

The police cite Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the Police Law as the legal basis for the collection of personal information by public security police, and the judgment of the first instance was not illegal even without a clear legal basis. inconsistent with the constitution of the country. The administration (the police in this case) must not restrict human rights without complying with the laws established by the Diet. I have to do it, and press the court.

Later, on October 9th, representatives of "Honet" from the Nagoya Kita Law Office, who held a study session on this case, and on November 13th, a local study session on a minibus from Japan to Ogaki. A representative of the Toyokawa branch of the National Relief Association gave a report and his impressions. Both spoke from the broad perspective that "this issue is not limited to the area of Ogaki, but rather the role of the police force and human rights in Japan as a whole."

Finally, Toei Inaba, co-representative of the Association for the Protection of Freedom to Speak, thanked the participants.

Next time 3rd Appellate Trial Oral Argument January 26, 2023 (Thursday) 14:00-Nagoya High Court Court No. 1

■ August 31, 2022 More than 100 people attended the 1st oral argument of the appeal trial

The long-standing restrictions on spectator seats in courts have been lifted, and courtroom No. 1 can accommodate nearly 100 people.

We prepared a minibus from Seino, but I was a little worried about how many people from Nagoya and Aichi would gather and whether we would be able to fill the spectators' seats.

The weather is actually fine today.

A large number of people gathered in front of the court. The auditorium is full. A few staff members were not included.

At the court, the plaintiff of the first instance (Ms. Nobuko Funada) made a statement of opinion, and two attorneys for the plaintiff of the first instance read aloud the summary of the grounds for the appeal.

　　　　　　　Manuscripts of statements read in court and submitted documents → Appeal materials

A debriefing meeting was held at Ouka Kaikan Matsu no Ma.

The next oral argument will be held on November 16 (Wednesday) from 14:00 at Nagoya High Court Court No. 1

Appellate Trial 1st Oral Argument

August 31 (Wednesday) 2:00 pm-Nagoya High Court Court No. 1

(There are statements from the plaintiff of the first trial and the defense team)

・From 1:00 p.m. Preliminary assembly and courtroom behavior @Nagoya High Court south side

・2:50 pm (tentative) – debriefing session @ Ouka Kaikan 4F Matsu no Ma