Japan's House of Representatives passed an amendment to the Criminal Procedure Law on June 16, 2026, to overhaul the nation's retrial system [1].
The change aims to prevent prolonged legal battles and strengthen safeguards against wrongful convictions by limiting the ability of prosecutors to block new trials. By reducing prosecutorial objections, the government seeks to expedite the process for those seeking to overturn previous verdicts.
The amendment prohibits the prosecution's appeal, known as kōkoku, in principle [2]. Additionally, the law mandates a review of the prohibition on the purpose-unrelated use of evidence every five years [3].
Lawmakers expressed diverging views on the effectiveness of the measure during the legislative process. Rep. Kanda (Liberal Democratic Party) said he is confident the law solves challenges in the current retrial system and moves the institution forward.
However, some legislators argued the changes do not go far enough to protect the accused. Rep. Hirabayashi (Center Reform Union) said the government proposal leaves many loopholes for prosecutors and does not sufficiently support victims of wrongful convictions and their families.
The legislation follows a period of intense scrutiny regarding the Japanese judiciary's reluctance to grant retrials. The new rules specifically target the procedural hurdles that have historically allowed the state to delay the reopening of cases for years, often leaving defendants in prison while evidence is debated.
“The amendment prohibits the prosecution's appeal, known as kōkoku, in principle.”
This legislative shift represents a significant attempt to balance state power with the rights of the accused in Japan. By limiting prosecutorial appeals and implementing a five-year review cycle for evidence rules, the government is acknowledging systemic delays that have plagued the retrial process. If successfully implemented, these changes could reduce the time defendants spend in legal limbo, though the 'loopholes' cited by opposition lawmakers suggest that the practical impact on wrongful conviction rates remains to be seen.
