Loading...
Please wait, while we are loading the content...
Similar Documents
Recent Judgements of the Supreme Court
| Content Provider | Semantic Scholar |
|---|---|
| Author | Oda, Hiroshi |
| Copyright Year | 1999 |
| Abstract | The Supreme Court rendered a judgement on the constitutionality of Article 39, paragraph 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Article 39, paragraph 1 provides that a suspect or defendant in custody is entitled to meet the defence counsel, or a person who is to be a defence counsel upon request of a person who is empowered to appoint a counsel without the presence of any person, or receive documents and other things and thus grants the right to consult and communicate with the defence counsel. Some years ago, it was customary for public prosecutors to ban the access of defence counsel to the suspect in custody in general and allow access only as an exception at a designated date and time and for a very short period. In 1978, the Supreme Court (petty bench) ruled in relation to the right to communicate with the defence counsel that 1) investigative agencies, in principle, should allow the defence counsel to see the suspect in custody whenever there is an application for an interview, 2) if there is an evident disadvantage to investigation through interruption by allowing access, such as in cases where the suspect is currently being interrogated, or there is a necessity for the suspect to be present in on site inspection, the investigation agency must discuss the matter with the defence counsel and designate an alternative date and time as close as possible1. This is not limited to instances where the suspect is currently being interrogated, but extends to cases where an interrogation is scheduled shortly and if access is allowed, the interrogation cannot commence as scheduled2. Restrictions imposed by the public prosecutor on the access by the defence counsel to the suspect in custody have become less common in the last decade. According to the Ministry of Justice's statistics, only around 1% of those who were arrested had some restriction on access3. In the present case, two attorneys were denied by the public prosecutor access to the suspect in detention on the ground that interrogation was scheduled. |
| Starting Page | 163 |
| Ending Page | 164 |
| Page Count | 2 |
| File Format | PDF HTM / HTML |
| Volume Number | 4 |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | https://www.zjapanr.de/index.php/zjapanr/article/download/737/763 |
| Language | English |
| Access Restriction | Open |
| Content Type | Text |
| Resource Type | Article |
