Trial over the "Sunagawa Incident" Tokyo District Court dismisses the lawsuit of students at the time

In 1957, the Tokyo District Court rejected the students' lawsuit against the students seeking compensation from the government in the so-called "Sunagawa Incident," in which students entered a U.S. military base in Tokyo and were subsequently convicted. The students complained that it was an unfair trial based on official documents showing that the chief justice of the Supreme Court at the time had an informal meeting with the U.S. side, but the Tokyo District Court said, "Even if a judge of the Supreme Court meets with the people involved in the trial, it cannot be said that it is not a 'fair court.'"

The Sunagawa Incident was an incident in which demonstrators entered a U.S. military base in Tokyo in 1957 and seven people, including students, were prosecuted.

The first trial acquitted the defendant on the grounds that the presence of US troops violates Article 7 of the Constitution, but the Supreme Court revoked it, and all of them were subsequently convicted.

However, in the 1s, an official document was found showing that the chief justice of the Supreme Court at the time was having an informal meeting with the American side, and in 9, three students at that time filed a lawsuit seeking damages from the state, saying that the right to receive a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution was violated.

In her ruling on the 2000th, Chief Judge Ayumi Koike of the Tokyo District Court pointed out that "it is presumed that the chief justice of the Supreme Court made some reference to the US ambassadors about the prediction and hope of the sentencing timing," but since it was through an interpreter, "details such as specific remarks and context cannot be inferred."

"It cannot be admitted that the Chief Justice conveyed the expected content of the ruling, and even if a Supreme Court judge met with the people involved in the trial, it cannot be said that it is not an 'impartial court.'"

The court also dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that more than three years had passed since the plaintiff learned of the damages, and the statute of limitations had passed.