“Lawyer will attend interrogation” Japan Federation of Bar Associations will start support system from April

In order to prevent unfair interrogations, the Japan Federation of Bar Associations (Japan Federation of Bar Associations) requires lawyers to be present during interrogations by police and others, and from April they will begin an initiative to pay support to lawyers who are actually present. Ta. On the other hand, there are voices from investigative agencies saying that it is a ``hindrance to uncovering the truth,'' and attention will be focused on what kind of impact the support system will have in the future.

The Japan Federation of Bar Associations is calling for lawyers to be present during interrogations by police, prosecutors, etc. in order to eliminate unfair interrogations and prevent false accusations, and will begin a new support system in April.

Specifically, if a lawyer such as a public defender

attends an interrogation during detention or after release, the fee will be 20,000 yen, or if he or she

stands by near the interrogation room and regularly provides advice, etc., the fee will be ¥20,000. 15,000 yen

▽If you request in writing to be present during the interrogation, the Japan Federation of Bar Associations will pay you 3,000 yen in support.

Private investigations and voluntary investigations that do not involve arrests are not covered.

The Criminal Procedure Code does not specify whether a lawyer can be present during an interrogation, and currently it is left to the discretion of the investigating agency.

Investigative agencies have voiced that ``sufficient statements from suspects will no longer be obtained, which will impede uncovering the truth.'' According to statistics from 2016, compiled by a committee of the Japan Federation of Bar Associations, lawyers have requested to be present. Although there were more than 100 cases, the investigative agency acknowledged only a few cases, including juvenile cases.

With the start of the Japan Federation of Bar Associations' support system, attention will be focused on how it will affect interrogations.

Interrogations by investigative agencies often become a problem

Interrogations conducted by investigative agencies have often been found to be illegal, with courts finding them illegal.

Two years ago, in Mie Prefecture, the Tsu District Court ordered the prefecture to pay 700,000 yen for illegal interrogations in which police officers questioned whether thieves had the right to remain silent during voluntary interrogations on suspicion of theft. A judgment has been handed down and has been finalized.

The audiotape of this interrogation, which reportedly lasted seven hours, was used as evidence in the trial, and the police forced the woman at the souvenir shop, who was later not prosecuted, to confess that she had stolen the sales proceeds. What's wrong with saying that?'' and ``Let's go to jail. I'm the one taking you away.''

In addition, three people, including the president of Okawara Kakoki, a chemical machinery manufacturer in Yokohama City, were arrested on suspicion of illegal export, and one of the arrested persons requested that the records be revised in a case in which it was later revealed that they were innocent. However, the Tokyo District Court found in a judgment in December last year that the investigator pretended to have edited the document and made him sign it, and pointed out that it was illegal.

In the case of large-scale bribery related to the House of Councilors elections, in which former Justice Minister Katsuyuki Kawai was found guilty, a former Hiroshima City Council member who was voluntarily interrogated suggested that prosecutors at the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office's Special Investigation Department not prosecute the case. He complained that he had been coerced into giving a statement, and in December last year, the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office compiled an investigation finding that the interrogation was ``improper.''

A man who has had a lawyer present during interrogations

Six years ago, a man who was interrogated in the presence of a lawyer said he avoided signing a statement that contained false facts.

Six years ago, a man in his 30s living in Hyogo Prefecture, whose hobby is collecting model guns, was searched by police on suspicion of violating the Firearms and Swords Act, and was subject to voluntary interrogation.

Previously, he had bought a model gun at a thrift store and resold it at an online auction the next day, but he was suspected that if it was made of metal, it would be an illegal imitation handgun.

Since I didn't have the real thing and my memory was vague, and I had no idea that it was illegal, I consulted attorney Kazunari Katayama, who I knew, and was allowed to have a lawyer present at the time.

The man answered the interrogation based on attorney Katayama's advice, ``Don't answer anything you don't remember,'' and at the end, he was asked to sign a statement.

Looking at the report, it appears that there are some details in the statement, such as when he answered, "I don't remember well, but it was heavy," about the weight of the model gun, but instead it says, "It was heavy compared to other model guns." It is said that there were multiple points of difference.

Meanwhile, the interrogation lasted for three hours, and the man thought about signing the petition in the hope that the investigation would be completed quickly, but Attorney Katayama told him, ``If you are not satisfied, you can refuse,'' so he refused to sign that day. It was.

After that, there were several voluntary interrogations, but in each case, he received the advice of attorney Katayama, and as a result, the charges were not filed.

The man said, ``During the first interrogation, I felt that the statement made it seem like I was aware of the crime, but if I didn't have a lawyer, I might have signed it. It was inaccurate, so I'm glad I made the decision together with an expert lawyer."

Attorney Katayama said, ``Small discrepancies between the actual statement and the statement record may cause a big problem later on.The biggest advantage of being present is that you can share the problem in real time and give advice.Discovering the truth is the key to the interrogation. I think it would be beneficial for both parties to have a lawyer present, as it would allow the investigating agency to obtain more accurate statements."

National Police Agency “This should be carefully considered, taking into consideration the necessity and impact on the investigation.”

Three years ago, the National Police Agency issued a warning to police forces nationwide regarding the presence of lawyers during interrogations by investigative agencies, stating that ``it is necessary to carefully consider the necessity and impact on investigations in a comprehensive manner.'' We issue administrative notifications and, if a complaint is received, we ask the police station to report it to police headquarters without making a decision on its own, and we instruct them to respond in an organized manner.

Regarding whether or not to allow the presence of a lawyer, "we will consider the impact on the investigation depending on the case, including whether it will interfere with the important role of the interrogation, which is to uncover the truth and clarify the suspicion of the suspect's crime." It is necessary to consider and make decisions in an organized manner, taking into account all of these factors."

The presence of lawyers during interrogations was discussed for approximately three years until 2014 at the Legislative Council, which is comprised of criminal law experts, legal practitioners, and experts.

At that time, there is a risk that ``there is a great risk that the nature of interrogation will be fundamentally changed and its functions will be significantly diminished,'' or ``There is a risk that the truth will not be revealed because sufficient statements cannot be obtained from the suspect.'' ``Such a situation would not gain the understanding of the victims and the public who want to uncover the truth.''Therefore, it was not introduced, and the National Police Agency said, ``The function of interrogation in the entire criminal procedure We recognize that this is something that should be carefully considered from a variety of perspectives, including its relationship to roles."

Former prosecutor “There is a risk that the ability to clarify the truth may be impaired”

Lawyer Yasuyuki Takai, a former prosecutor, has expressed the idea that lawyers should not be allowed to be present, citing the risk of compromising the ability of interrogations to uncover the truth.

Regarding Japan's criminal law, attorney Takai said, ``Even if the same act is committed, if there is an intent to kill, it will be considered murder, and if there is no intent to kill, it will be considered manslaughter.There is a difference in sentencing depending on whether there is an intent to kill, and there are many subjective factors. "There is," he said.

He added, ``In Japan, the burden of proof is placed on the investigating agency, and in order to prove the subjectivity of a suspect, it may be necessary to rely on a confession.It is difficult to prove the truth unless you persuade them to tell the truth.'' Since it is a law, there is no doubt that allowing defense attorneys to be present during interrogations would impair the ability to uncover the truth.It would disrupt the balance of criminal justice and the balance between the prosecution and the defense, and within the current system. I don't think it should be acknowledged."