Will Acquitted Ex-TEPCO Officials Be Compensated?

このページを日本語で読む

The Second Petty Bench of the Supreme Court has spoken. It has unanimously rejected an appeal of lower court decisions that absolved two former Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) vice presidents of professional negligence resulting in death and injury from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident in 2011.

Both the district and appeals courts had found the two former TEPCO executives not guilty. However, court-appointed prosecutors appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court echoed the lower court rulings, saying that the two former vice presidents could not have foreseen the massive tsunami that would follow the Great East Japan Earthquake. Therefore, they could not be held criminally liable.

3.11 — *The Great East Japan Earthquake devastated huge swaths of the Northeast Japan coastline in the wake of the earthquake, fires and tsunami that followed. (File photo)*

'Compulsory Indictments'

These were cases of compulsory indictment that were pursued even though prosecutors had dropped charges due to "insufficient evidence" against the individuals. Nevertheless, in the end, the former TEPCO executives were found innocent.

It is difficult to understand why the system has not been revised despite its glaring flaws and issues.

In 2004, the Act on Committee for Inquest of Prosecution was amended. It strengthened the authority of lay review boards, allowing them to pursue "mandatory indictments" in cases where the prosecutor had decided not to prosecute. Under the amendment, the review board only needs to issue two resolutions calling for the indictment.

To date, 15 people have been mandatorily indicted in 11 cases. But only two defendants in two cases have been found guilty. The remainder have been found innocent. These extreme results suggest there are problems with the system.

Since prosecutors had already determined that the evidence in the case was insufficient to prosecute, it is only natural that proving guilt in a compulsory indictment case would be extremely difficult. But the real problem is the system itself. Sixteen years after it was launched, despite a large list of cases brought under it, there is no analysis or verification of how well it is functioning.

*Tanks of ALPs treated water from the defunct nuclear power plant are lined up on the grounds of the TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. January 30 (©Sankei by Akihiko Otsuka)*

Double Standards and Unreasonable Burdens

Two main points need to be reviewed. First is the problem that prosecutions are subject to a double standard. Prosecutors indict in cases when "guilt can be presumed" based on the evidence. But compulsory prosecutions are different. In that system, "black and white are decided by the court" based on previous examination and deliberation on the case.

Some court watchers believe that all cases that were dismissed by prosecutors due to insufficient evidence should be considered acquittals. Instead, they say that the focus should be on cases with sufficient evidence for prosecution.

Second, the burden on the defendant is heavy. It took nine years for this TEPCO case to be finally decided. Will the defendants be compensated for damages they have suffered?

In a case of prosecution by prosecutors, the state is liable for compensation. But in a case of mandatory prosecution decided by committee, exactly who is responsible?

Defense Rights Lost in Opaque System

What is more, a defendant is not allowed to present a defense during committee deliberations. Therefore, the right of defense is insufficient under the system.

The review process in mandatory prosecutions is also not open to the public. And the number of cases and court results are not immediately disclosed. Overall, there is a lack of transparency in the law's operation, and this undermines the rigor and fairness of criminal justice. There needs to be an immediate, official review of the system.

The Fukushima Daiichi reactor meltdown was a major tragedy. It was triggered by a natural disaster. But, under the law, only individuals can be judged responsible for criminal negligence resulting in death. For that reason, doubts and opposition to the decision to abandon prosecutions in the TEPCO case are perfectly understandable.

However, shouldn't we seriously consider going beyond individual responsibility and introducing "organizational penalties?" These would establish dual penalties for the same crime and make corporations criminally liable for negligence.

Author: Editorial Board, The Sankei Shimbun

このページを日本語で読む