The results of the oral argument described in this blog, “Racial profiling lawsuit 5th oral argument“, have been shared by Call 4.
Let’s stop racist police questioning! Lawsuit | #STOPRacialProfiling’s case page (lawsuit materials, scheduled dates, progress, message board) has been updated.
https://www.call4.jp/info.php?type=items&id=I0000128
Please take a look at the new information.
We hope you will continue to pay attention to Let’s stop racist police questioning! Lawsuit | #STOPRacialProfiling.
5th Date Report (from Call4)
2025/3/13 14:13
Report on Court Proceedings
On February 28, 2025, the fifth hearing was held. Once again, many people came to observe the proceedings, filling both the courtroom and the post-hearing briefing session with great energy and enthusiasm.
We sincerely appreciate your continued support.
In this session, the plaintiffs submitted the following briefs and evidence:
- Sixthth Brief (Existence of the racially discriminatory practice of stopping 1)
- Seventh Brief (Existence of the racially discriminatory practice of stopping 2)
- Eighth Brief (Standard for the burden of proof)
- Ninth Brief (Application to the case)
- Evidence: Exhibits Kō 25 to 57
Both defendant Tokyo Metropolitan Government and defendant Aichi Prefecture have denied the existence of the practice in question in which law enforcement officers conduct stop-and-question procedures based on suspicions arising from racial appearance. In response, the plaintiffs presented extensive supporting evidence, including:
- A large-scale comparative study on stop-and-question experiences between Japanese nationals and foreign nationals
- An expert opinion analyzing the study above
- Testimonies from multiple former police officers
- Statements from individuals who have had similar experiences (collected through surveys, written statements, and newspaper articles)
These arguments were outlined in the Sixth and Seventh Briefs.
Furthermore, the plaintiffs analyzed case law from the European Court of Human Rights and courts in various countries, demonstrating that administrative agencies are often subject to shift of the burden of proof when engaging in racially discriminatory practices. Based on this analysis, the plaintiffs argued that such a standard should also be applied in this case (Eighth Brief).
Under this evidentiary standard, the plaintiffs argued that:
- The existence of the Racially Discriminatory Practice in Tokyo and Aichi should be recognized, and
- The specific stop-and-question incidents involving the plaintiffs lacked reasonable grounds for suspicion (Ninth Brief).
Defendants’ Response and Scheduling Issues
The defendants stated that they were unable to estimate when they could submit their rebuttal briefs and that it would take two to three months to prepare their responses. The plaintiffs objected to this timeline, arguing that it was unreasonable for the defendants to require several months merely to determine when they could submit their briefs. Consequently, a significant portion of the hearing was spent discussing the scheduling of future proceedings.
As a result, the next hearing was scheduled as a procedural conference (non-public) on April 22 to clarify the timeline for the defendants’ submissions. Following this, a public oral argument hearing is scheduled for either June 26 at 11:00 AM or July 17 at 11:00 AM.
Plaintiffs’ Presentation of Submissions and Evidence
During the hearing, the plaintiffs’ legal representatives also presented oral arguments explaining the contents of the submitted briefs and evidence.
The plaintiffs believe that the evidence submitted in this session is highly persuasive. The collection and preparation of this evidence were made possible only through the extensive cooperation of many individuals. We express our sincere gratitude to all those who contributed to this effort.
I will tell you when I will do it.
In addition to my work as a Gyoseishoshi, I also work as an IT consultant, and I often make promises to my clients that I will tell them by a certain date when I will do it, and then temporarily withhold my response.
Aichi Prefecture’s response above, “The defendants stated that they were unable to estimate when they could submit their rebuttal briefs and that it would take two to three months to prepare their responses” is of the same nature, but in the private sector, 2-3 months would get you fired.