"x x x.
 Lay judge system ruled constitutionalThe Supreme Court has ruled that the lay judge system introduced in 2009 is constitutional, making its first judgment on the system as it rejected an appeal by a Philippine defendant who sought to have her conviction overturned due to the involvement of lay judges. "Citizens' participation in the judiciary is not prohibited constitutionally," presiding Justice Hironobu Takesaki said Wednesday. "The lay judge system guarantees that trials be carried out based on law and evidence in a fair court." The top court's decision finalizes the nine-year prison sentence given to the 45-year-old woman, who was charged with smuggling about 1.9 kilograms of stimulant drugs from Malaysia. The trial last year at the Chiba District Court under the lay judge system also levied a fine of 4 million yen against the woman. After the Tokyo High Court rejected the woman's appeal, she appealed to the top court. In an unanimous decision by the top court's 15 justices, the Grand Bench said the lay judge system had the advantage of promoting interaction between the general public's viewpoints and feelings, and professional judges' expertise. "In that way, the strengths of each side can be utilized, helping establish an appropriate way for citizens to participate in the judiciary," the top court said. Wednesday's judgment refuted arguments by some experts that the lay judge system was unconstitutional, thereby paving the way for the system to take root in the country. In its ruling, the Supreme Court first referred to why the Constitution included stipulations on criminal trials. When the current Constitution was created after World War II, the trend in Western countries was to strengthen trials' national foundation through citizens' participation in the judiciary, according to the ruling. It also said a jury system was briefly introduced under the Meiji Constitution. The previous constitution included the expression "trials by judges," which was reworded in the current one as "trials at courts." Considering these facts, citizens' participation in the judiciary "is constitutionally permitted," the Supreme Court said. It then examined the claims by the defendant's lawyers according to provisions in the Constitution. The ruling rejected an argument that the lay judge system violated people's right to a court trial, saying, "The system is designed not to appoint those who may make unfair judgements as lay judges, thus enabling defendants to have a fair trial in a just court." The defense also claimed that citizens' participation jeopardizes professional judges' independence and impairs their role as protectors of defendants' human rights. However, the Supreme Court responded, "The lay judge system also pays attention to protecting defendants' rights because it requires at least one professional judge's opinion to be included when deciding a verdict." It also rejected the defense's argument that service as a lay judge constitutes "servitude," which is prohibited by the Constitution. "The lay judge system offers the public the right to participate in the judiciary, just like suffrage," it said. "In addition, it provides citizens with flexibility regarding whether to refuse [to serve as lay judges]." (Nov. 18, 2011) x x x." |
