The Tokyo High Court will hand down its verdict on the 18th in a trial in which three former executives of Tokyo Electric Power Company were forcibly indicted for professional negligence resulting in death and injury over the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident.

The three were acquitted in the first trial, but the subsequent civil court ruled that they should pay a huge amount of compensation, so it will be interesting to see how the high court will decide on criminal responsibility again.

Tsunehisa Katsumata (82), former chairman of TEPCO, and three former vice presidents, Ichiro Takekuro (76) and Sakae Muto (72), rescued 44 people from the nuclear accident, including hospitalized patients in Fukushima Prefecture. He was forcibly indicted for professional negligence resulting in death and injury by a decision of the Inquest of Prosecution.



The focus was on the reliability of the "long-term evaluation" of earthquake predictions announced by a national organization nine years before the earthquake, and the first trial denied it and said, "The danger that the operation of the nuclear power plant must be stopped cannot be predicted. I did not," and acquitted the three.



At the trial of the Tokyo High Court in the second trial, the designated lawyer who played the role of the public prosecutor said, "It is clear that the 'long-term evaluation' is reliable, and we were able to predict that a tsunami exceeding 10 meters would come. For the three people, a seawall was constructed. In addition, there was a duty to take measures to prevent flooding in buildings, etc.", but the former management side insisted that they were not guilty again, saying that they had "no scientific credibility."



On the other hand, the judgment of the civil court issued after the first trial judgment recognized the reliability of the "long-term evaluation" and ordered four former management members, including three, to pay more than 13 trillion yen in compensation.



The ruling is scheduled to be handed down at 2:00 pm on the 18th, and it will be interesting to see what kind of judgment will be made on the criminal liability of the former management as it will soon be 12 years since the nuclear accident.

Case and trial history

It was in 2012, just over a year after the accident, that criminal charges against the former management of TEPCO began to be pursued over the nuclear power plant accident, which caused unprecedented damage and was said to be the "worst level in the world." It was June.



Residents of Fukushima Prefecture submitted complaints and complaints to the Fukushima District Public Prosecutor's Office, demanding that the former management of TEPCO be held criminally responsible.



More than 14,000 people across the country eventually joined the two rounds of indictments and accusations that year.



Following this, the prosecutor's office launched an investigation.



In addition to repeated voluntary interviews with TEPCO executives, including former chairman Tsunehisa Katsumata, the investigation proceeded by listening to a wide range of opinions from earthquake and tsunami experts.



However, in September 2013, the Tokyo District Public Prosecutor's Office, which had been conducting an investigation, decided not to indict all of them, saying, "The tsunami was so huge that it exceeded expectations, and criminal responsibility cannot be questioned."



The stage shifts to the prosecution committee.



In July 2014, in response to a complaint from a group of residents and lawyers who were dissatisfied with the non-prosecution, the Public Prosecutor's Examination Board ordered former chairman Katsumata, former vice president Ichiro Takekuro, and former vice president Sakae Muto, ``We will not prosecute. should.”



As a result of the reinvestigation, the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office decided not to prosecute again, but in July 2015, the Public Prosecutor's Examination Board again decided that the three should be prosecuted.



Following two resolutions, the three former management members were forcibly indicted for professional negligence resulting in death and injury, and criminal trials were held.



In June 2017, more than six years after the accident, at the first trial held at the Tokyo District Court, the three pleaded not guilty, saying that the accident could not have been predicted.



The designated attorney acting as the public prosecutor claimed that the possibility of a huge tsunami was reported to former vice president Takekuro and former chairman Katsumata, who was the chief executive officer of the company, and that the tsunami could have been predicted.



Before the accident, what kind of measures were taken by TEPCO, and was the former management involved?



At the trial, TEPCO employees who were in charge of tsunami countermeasures before the accident were called to the court one after another as witnesses, and they testified about the situation when they reported the expected height of the tsunami.



On the other hand, former vice president Takekuro and former chairman Katsumata were repeatedly questioned about how employees reported on the status of tsunami countermeasures at an in-house meeting called “Gozenkaigi,” which included management. However, he countered, saying, "I have no recollection of receiving the report."



In September 2019, nearly two years and three months after the first trial, the first trial judgment was handed down after 37 hearings.



All three were acquitted of five years' imprisonment.



The designated attorney appealed against the acquittal.



At the second trial, which began at the Tokyo High Court in November 2018, the three again claimed to be guilty.



The designated lawyer requested an on-site inspection by a judge and an expert witness examination, but it was not granted, and the second trial ended in three times, and the judgment was reached.

Issues and Arguments from Both Sides

The issues at issue in the court were the "predictability" of whether or not a gigantic tsunami that would cause a nuclear accident could have been predicted, and, if it was possible to predict, whether the accident could have been avoided if effective measures were taken. There are two points of "gender".



The key to judging these is the reliability of the "long-term evaluation" published in 2002, nine years before the earthquake, by the National Headquarters for Earthquake Research Promotion, which is made up of experts on earthquakes and tsunamis.



This "long-term evaluation" presented a new view that a magnitude 8-class earthquake accompanied by a huge tsunami over a wide area, including off the coast of Fukushima Prefecture, would occur with a probability of about 20% within 30 years. .



Regarding this, the first trial ruled that ``opinions are divided even among experts, and there remains a reasonable doubt that it was objectively reliable and concrete as of early March 2011''.



In addition, it said, ``It cannot be recognized that there was a possibility that a huge tsunami would come that would have forced the nuclear power plant to stop operating as a measure to avoid an accident, and it would not be held criminally responsible.''3 acquitted the man.



In the second trial, the designated lawyer who played the role of the public prosecutor said, "It's clear that the 'long-term evaluation' is reliable. He claimed that he should have been able to predict the danger.



He also criticized the first trial's decision to stop the operation of the nuclear power plant as a preventative measure, and argued that the three were obliged to construct seawalls and take measures to prevent flooding of buildings.



On the other hand, the former management side said that the ``long-term evaluation'' has no scientific reliability, and said, ``The measures to prevent a huge tsunami are large-scale, and over a long period of time, even if they were started before the accident, they would not be in time. He once again asserted his innocence.

Three trials over the nuclear accident

Regarding the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant 12 years ago, both criminal and civil lawsuits were filed.



Major lawsuits related to the nuclear accident included a criminal trial in which the former chairman and three others were forcibly indicted on charges of professional negligence resulting in death and injury, and TEPCO shareholders seeking compensation for five former management members of the company. There have been shareholder derivative lawsuits demanding that residents be forced to evacuate, and others have sought compensation from the government and TEPCO. have become.

The point is "long-term evaluation"

In judging these, the reliability of the "long-term evaluation" announced by a national agency in 2002 was disputed, and in the trial, the designated attorney who played the role of the public prosecutor and the plaintiff side said, "It has sufficient reliability, and based on it. If countermeasures were taken, the accident could have been prevented." In contrast, the former management, the government, and TEPCO countered head-on, saying, ``The accident could not have been prevented because it could not be said to be reliable.'' bottom.

First criminal trial

In the criminal trial, four years ago, the Tokyo District Court in the first trial denied the reliability of the "long-term evaluation" and acquitted all three of them, saying that they could not have predicted that a huge tsunami would hit the nuclear power plant.

Admitting Negligence in Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit

On the other hand, civil courts have found the opposite.



In July last year, in a shareholder derivative lawsuit, the Tokyo District Court ruled on the reliability of the "long-term evaluation", saying, "Considering the purpose, role, and member composition of the national institution that published the opinion, there was a reasonable scientific It was a reliable piece of knowledge that required the former management to implement tsunami countermeasures."



He added, ``The former management team was aware of the possibility of a serious accident, and had the obligation to instruct the company to promptly implement the minimum tsunami countermeasures to prevent an accident from occurring, but failed to do so. There is a good chance that a serious situation could have been avoided if measures had been taken to prevent flooding," and acknowledged both the ``foreseeability'' and ``result avoidance'', and the three defendants in the criminal trial. A total of 13.3 trillion yen in compensation was ordered to the four former management members, including Mr.



This is the first time that the former management has been found guilty of personal negligence through criminal and civil trials, and the four have appealed.

``Long-term evaluation'' and ``predictability'' The Supreme Court does not show judgment

In addition, in class action lawsuits filed by evacuees and others seeking compensation from the national government and TEPCO in various places, the certification and judgment of the first and second courts differ, and attention is being paid to the Supreme Court's decision. it was done.



However, in its ruling in June last year, the Supreme Court did not give a clear judgment on the reliability of the "long-term evaluation" or whether it was possible to predict a huge tsunami before the earthquake, but said, "The actual tsunami was larger than expected. Even if the government had ordered TEPCO to take the necessary measures, it is highly likely that the accident could not have been avoided."



However, one of the four judges acknowledged the reliability, saying, ``The ``long-term evaluation'' was formulated using an appropriate method and its basic reliability was guaranteed. It is highly possible that it could have been avoided, and it is illegal for the government not to order countermeasures."

Expert ``Pay attention to whether measures other than suspension of operation are considered''

Criminal trials, which impose criminal penalties on individuals, require proof beyond reasonable doubt, and the hurdles for liability recognition are said to be higher than in civil trials.



Professor Hiroshi Kabashima of Tohoku University, who specializes in jurisprudence and is familiar with the trials surrounding the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, said, "Even though we could have predicted that the rights of others would be violated, if we violated our obligation to avoid it, The fact that negligence liability arises is common in both criminal and civil courts, but in criminal courts, decisions are made from the perspective of ``whether the offense is serious enough to warrant a criminal penalty.''



After that, the point of the ruling was, ``In the first trial, opinions were divided even among experts about the long-term evaluation at the time, so it was determined that there was no specific foreseeability to question criminal responsibility, but the high court confirmed this point. Also, assuming that the hazards could be predicted, should the shutdown of nuclear power plants be the only method of avoiding accidents, as was the case in the first trial? I would like to pay attention to whether the safety measures recognized in the civil court, such as measures against flooding and relocation to higher ground, are also considered a problem."