●  

●  

●  

●  

●  

●
HOME​ > ​About the JFBA​ > ​The Japanese Judicial System​ > The Japanese Judicial System

● About us
● Mission Statement
● Activities
● The Japanese Judicial System
○ The Japanese Judicial System
○ The Japanese Attorney System
○ Information for Registered foreign lawyer
○ Duties of the Japan Legal Support Center and the JFBA
○ Justice System Reform
● Publications

The Japanese Judicial System

1. The Japanese Judicial System

There are five types of ordinary courts in Japan: (1) Summary
Courts, (2) Family Courts, (3) District Courts, (4) High Courts, and
(5) The Supreme Court. Japan utilizes a three-tiered judicial
system and, in most cases, a summary, family, or district court will
be the court of first instance depending on the nature of the
matter.

 
 1.1. Summary Courts
The summary courts handle, in principle, civil
lawsuits involving claims which do not exceed 1.4
million. The summary courts also handle civil
conciliation cases and demands for payment.
Furthermore, they handle criminal cases related to
relatively minor offenses.are lawfully residing in
Japan.

1.2. Family Courts

The family courts handle lawsuits related to
personal status, adjudications and conciliations for
family affairs cases, adjudications for juvenile
cases, and other similar cases.

1.3. District Courts

The district courts handle the first instance of most
types of civil, criminal, and administrative cases,
as well as koso appeals against a final judgment of
the first instance of civil cases rendered by
summary courts. Most civil cases are normally
deliberated by a single judge, except for cases for
which the court has decided that it shall be tried by
three judges, and certain other cases. Regarding
criminal cases, generally a single judge handles a
case, except for certain serious crimes which are
tried by three judges. In Japan, the Saiban-in (lay
judge) system, which will be described below,
started in May 2009.

1.4. High Courts

The high courts mainly handle koso appeals, i.e.
appeals filed against a final judgment rendered by
a lower court, such as the first instance at a district
court, a final judgment rendered by a family court,
and the first instance of a criminal case at a
summary court. In addition, on April 1, 2005 the
Intellectual Property High Court, which specializes
in intellectual property cases, was established as a
special separate branch of the Tokyo High Court.
or homeless.

1.5. The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is the highest and final court
and handles appeals against judgments rendered
by high courts (jokoku appeals) and certain special
kokoku appeals that are prescribed under the

 
 procedural laws. It is composed of the Chief
Justice and 14 Justices, with a Grand Bench
comprised of all 15 Justices and three petty
benches each comprised of 5 Justices. The cases
are first assigned to one of the three petty
benches, and those cases that involve
constitutional questions are transferred to the
Grand Bench for examination and adjudication.r
homeless.

2. Judicial Proceedings
2.1. Civil Cases and Administrative Cases
Civil cases are legal disputes between private
individuals. The classic examples are disputes
over the lending of money or real property leases.
Indeed, the vast majority of legal disputes are civil
cases. When these cases are disputed in court,
they are referred to as “civil lawsuits” in which an
individual’s rights and obligations are ultimately
determined by a judgment.

When an individual is not satisfied with a decision

made by the central or local government, she or he
may also seek a judgment from a court as
administrative litigation, as well as file an appeal
with the administrative agency. This category of
cases is referred to as “administrative cases.”
Examples include demands for the cancelation of
taxes imposed by the tax authorities or nullification
of an election.

The court of first instance for civil lawsuits is a

district court or summary court, while it is a district
court for administrative cases, with such courts
judging the cases in accordance with the Code of
Civil Procedure or the Administrative Case
Litigation Act.

Labor cases are another important form of legal

dispute. Regarding “individual labor disputes”
between an employer and an employee, in April
2006, Japan introduced the Labor Adjudication
System for individual labor dispute cases. Under
this system, a Labor Adjudication Committee
formed by a labor adjudicator who is a judge and
two Labor Adjudicators who have specialized
knowledge and experience on labor issues seeks

 
 to resolve the dispute generally in no more than
three sessions by providing conciliation or
adjudication. The objectives are to resolve cases
quickly, appropriately, and effectively. Cases that
cannot be resolved through this system are
referred to ordinary judicial proceedings.

2.2. Family Affairs Cases

As their name suggests, family affairs cases are
disputes involving the family, for example marriage
annulments, cancelations, and divorces; custody
over children; inheritance; and adult guardianship.
In the resolution of family affairs, particular

 
 attention must be given to emotional conflicts and
privacy considerations. Japan has applied a
system of conciliation where family courts around
the country dispose of many different types of
family affairs cases with closed proceedings when
the parties have difficulty resolving the cases
themselves. Conciliation is conducted by a
Conciliation Committee comprised of a judge or an
attorney as a conciliation judge and members from
the general public. If the case is not resolved by
conciliation, it is settled through adjudication by a
family court or through litigation. Whether the case
is settled through adjudication or litigation depends
on the facts of the case in question and the
applicable laws.

2.3. Criminal Cases

A. Criminal Procedure
Criminal procedure begins with the
acknowledgement of the crime, and it proceeds to
an investigation by the police and the prosecutor,
indictment, and then to the trial.

One who is suspected of committing a crime

(suspect) will be requested to appear in the police
or public prosecutor’s office or arrested, and will be
interrogated. Arrested suspects will be constrained
in detention facilities of the police or detention
center for up to seventy-two hours, and may be
detained subsequently if necessary, for a period of
ten days (up to twenty days if an extension of up to
ten days is permitted). There is no pre-indictment
bail system.

An interrogation is carried out in a closed room

called an “interrogation room” in the police station
or in the public prosecutor’s office. The suspect
may be subject to many interrogations for a long
time without the presence of an attorney.

By an amendment of the Code of Criminal

Procedure in 2016, a system of audio/video
recordings of the process of interrogations will be
introduced by June 2019. However, the cases
subject to this system are limited to the cases to
be tried by lay judges and those in which public
prosecutors conduct their own investigations. As a

 
 result, this system is not applicable to most of the
cases.

Public prosecutors have the authority to indict the

suspects. One who is suspected of committing a
crime and indicted (the accused) will proceed to
trial. If a suspect who has been detained prior to
the indictment is indicted, the detention will
continue after the indictment unless detention is
canceled or bail is provided. The detention period
is two months and may be extended for additional
one-month periods in cases where it is especially
necessary to continue the detention. The right of
the suspect and the accused to have the
assistance of competent counsel is guaranteed in
the Constitution (Art. 34, and Art. 37, clause 3). A
court-appointed attorney is assigned to suspects
who are unable to retain counsel due to poverty or
for other reasons. Previously in Japan,
court-appointed attorneys had been assigned for
defendants only after indictment. However, since
October 2006, court-appointed attorneys are to be
assigned prior to indictment for suspects of certain
serious crimes who are detained. The scope of this
court-appointed attorney system was expanded
after May 2009 to include detained suspects of all
“cases that require counsel in attendance in
principle at the trial.” In other words, cases
punishable with the death penalty, life
imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without
work for more than three years.

Furthermore, by amendment of the Code of

Criminal Procedure in 2016, the scope will be
expanded by June 2018 to include all cases where
a detention warrant is issued to the suspect.

During trials, the main focus is on the examination

of evidence. Procedures to arrange evidence and
points of dispute may be held prior to trial or
between hearings within a trial. When the cases
are put into pretrial arrangement proceedings or
inter-trial arrangement proceedings, public
prosecutors are obliged to disclose evidence to a
certain extent, but not in other cases.

Victims of certain serious crims and their bereaved

family members can, if so decided by the court,

 
 attend hearings of the criminal trial, state their
opinions, and interrogate the accused and
witnesses, either on their own or by an attorney
who has been entrusted by them.

For further information on problems in the criminal

justice system and the JFBA's efforts toward the
drastic reform of criminal procedures, please see
“​Reform of the Criminal Justice System​”.

 
 B. Saiban-in (Lay Judge) System

Under the Saiban-in (lay judge) system, lay judges

who are randomly chosen from the electorate,
serve alongside professional judges (six lay judges
and three professional judges in principle) in
examining cases in district courts involving certain
serious crimes such as (i) any crime which is
punishable by the death penalty, indefinite penal
servitude, or imprisonment; or (ii) an intentional
criminal act causing the death of a victim which is
subject to examination by a panel of judges. The
system was introduced in May 2009.

Lay judges participate in the hearing of the criminal

trial with professional judges, conduct a public
investigation of the evidence, and determine guilt
and sentencing. Lay judges may ask questions to
the accused and witnesses in the trial. The system
is similar to a jury system in that lay judges are
chosen at random from voter lists and appointed to
serve on specific cases. It also resembles a lay
judge system in that citizens participate in trials
alongside professional judges.

It is believed that the lay judge system will

actualize the principles of direct participation and
of oral testimony in trials through things such as
intensive court hearings convened every day,
examination of the evidence in a way that is easy
to understand with the focus on the testimony
presented in court.

C. Retrial

The defendant has the right to file for a “retrial”

after a guilty verdict has been finalized if new
evidence is found, based on which a determination
of innocence may be made.

2.4. Juvenile Cases

Juvenile cases are cases involving juveniles aged
14 to 19 who have committed a crime (juvenile
offenders), and those cases concerning juveniles
under 14 who have violated a criminal law or
ordinance but are not considered offenders under
the Penal Code because of their young age
(juveniles who have committed illegal acts), and

 
 cases concerning juveniles under 20 who are likely
to reoffend (pre-delinquents).

In order to realize the principles of the sound

rearing of juveniles, articulated in Article 1 of the
Juvenile Act, Japan has applied a system where
every juvenile case is referred to a family court
after an investigation has been conducted by the
police or prosecutors. The family court investigates
the accepted case and starts hearing proceedings.
The hearing proceedings in juvenile cases differs
from those in ordinary criminal cases. One
difference is that juvenile hearing proceedings are
not open to the public. Juvenile hearing
proceedings may result in a decision of
non-punishment or protective measures, such as
probation or referral to juvenile training schools or
children’s self-reliance support facilities. For cases
in which the family court decides that juveniles
should face criminal charges based on the results
of an investigation, the family court may refer a
case back to the public prosecutors with the
decision of juvenile hearing proceedings for trial
under ordinary criminal proceedings. In this case,
the same criminal proceedings as those for an
adult are conducted for the juvenile.

A juvenile may appoint an attorney as an

“attendant,” however, the scope of the juvenile
cases to which a publicly-funded attorney
attendant can be provided is limited to certain
cases for juveniles who are detained in juvenile
detention centers, and the reality is that a
publicly-funded attorney is provided only when the
family court admits the necessity at its discretion.

● ACCESS
● SITEMAP