What is the Prosecution Review Commission? | Differences between 'Appropriate Non-Prosecution', 'Inappropriate Non-Prosecution', and 'Appropriate Prosecution'

Hello, I am Kane-san.

In news reports about criminal cases, you may see terms like "non-prosecution," "petitioned to the Prosecution Review Commission," and "decided as inappropriate non-prosecution."

What is often confused here is the difference between inappropriate non-prosecution and appropriate prosecution. Both are resolutions to review a prosecutor's decision not to prosecute, but the subsequent procedures are not the same.

Also, even if the Prosecution Review Commission determines that a non-prosecution is inappropriate or that prosecution is appropriate, it does not mean the suspect is automatically found guilty. It is the criminal trial that takes place after an indictment that determines guilt or innocence.

In this article, I will organize the structure of the Prosecution Review Commission, the three types of resolutions, and the differences between reinvestigation and forced prosecution.

What is the Prosecution Review Commission? | A system where citizens review a prosecutor's decision not to prosecute

The Prosecution Review Commission is a system where citizens review, from their perspective, whether a prosecutor's decision not to prosecute a case was appropriate.

According to court guidance, 11 prosecution review commissioners are selected by lottery from among citizens who have the right to vote. Prosecution review commissioners are not judges or prosecutors.

Prosecutors examine evidence and legal requirements for investigated cases to decide whether to prosecute or not. However, if a case is not prosecuted, a criminal trial usually does not begin, and there is no opportunity for a court to judge the evidence in an open courtroom.

Therefore, the Prosecution Review Commission was established to allow citizens to inspect non-prosecution decisions upon receiving petitions from victims, complainants, or accusers.

How does the review process begin?

There are mainly two ways for the Prosecution Review Commission to begin a review.

Petition for Review

Victims of a crime, or those who have filed a complaint or accusation, submit a petition to the competent Prosecution Review Commission. Not just anyone can file a petition; it is limited to those in positions defined by law. There is no cost for procedural guidance or filing a petition.

Ex Officio Review

Even without a petition, the Prosecution Review Commission may initiate a review on its own, triggered by news reports or other information.

Review meetings are held in private. The commission examines investigation records obtained from the Public Prosecutors Office, materials submitted by the petitioner, and hears opinions from prosecutors as necessary. In cases involving complex legal or evidentiary issues, they can also receive advice from review assistants who are lawyers.

The Three Resolutions | Different meanings and subsequent procedures

There are three possible conclusions from the Prosecution Review Commission.

1. Appropriate Non-Prosecution

This is a decision that the prosecutor's non-prosecution disposition is appropriate.

This resolution does not declare that 'the incident absolutely did not occur' or that 'there was no problem with the suspect's actions.' It is a conclusion that the Prosecution Review Commission does not seek a review of the prosecutor's decision not to bring the case to trial.

2. Inappropriate Non-Prosecution

This is a resolution stating that it is not appropriate to leave the case as non-prosecuted, and that a decision on whether to prosecute or not should be made again after a more detailed investigation.

When a decision of 'Inappropriate Non-Prosecution' is made, the prosecutor conducts a re-investigation and decides on the disposition again. As a result of the re-investigation, the case may be prosecuted or may be decided as non-prosecuted again.

What is important is that 'Inappropriate Non-Prosecution' alone does not lead to forced prosecution. Even if the prosecutor decides not to prosecute again, there is no mechanism for an automatic second stage of review to begin based solely on the 'Inappropriate Non-Prosecution' resolution.

3. Appropriate Prosecution

This is a decision that the prosecutor's non-prosecution disposition was incorrect and that the case should be prosecuted. For 'Appropriate Prosecution', the approval of 8 or more out of 11 members is required.

When a resolution of 'Appropriate Prosecution' is received, the prosecutor re-investigates and decides again whether to prosecute or not. If the prosecutor decides not to prosecute again, or fails to make a disposition within the statutory period, the Prosecution Review Commission conducts a second stage of review.

In the second stage, if 8 or more out of 11 members again resolve that the case should be prosecuted, a lawyer designated by the court will prosecute on behalf of the prosecutor. This is the procedure generally known as 'forced prosecution'.

The biggest difference between 'Inappropriate Non-Prosecution' and 'Appropriate Prosecution'

Both resolutions require the prosecutor to re-investigate. However, the subsequent paths differ.

• Inappropriate Non-Prosecution: Requests re-investigation and re-disposition

• Appropriate Prosecution: Requests re-investigation, and if the case is again not prosecuted, it proceeds to the second stage of review

• Prosecution Resolution: If 8 or more members approve in the second stage, a designated lawyer will prosecute

The explanation that 'because it became an Inappropriate Non-Prosecution, the next step will definitely be a trial' is not accurate. What leads to the possibility of forced prosecution is the initial 'Appropriate Prosecution' resolution and the subsequent 'Prosecution Resolution' in the second stage.

A resolution is not a guilty verdict

What the Prosecution Review Commission reviews is the prosecutor's decision to not prosecute. It is not a system that determines guilt, innocence, or punishment like a criminal trial.

Even if an 'Appropriate Prosecution' or 'Prosecution Resolution' is issued, there are cases where the defendant is found not guilty in the trial after being prosecuted. Conversely, 'Appropriate Non-Prosecution' does not deny civil, political, or moral responsibility.

When watching news reports, it is necessary to distinguish between the following stages.

1. Investigation
2. Prosecution or non-prosecution by the public prosecutor
3. Review of the non-prosecution decision by the Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution
4. Re-investigation and re-disposition
5. Criminal trial if indicted

By confirming which stage the case is in, you can avoid jumping to premature conclusions such as 'non-prosecution means innocent' or 'inappropriate non-prosecution means guilty'.

Three differences seen in the resolution regarding Prefectural Assemblyman Okutani

In the case involving speeches made by Takashi Tachibana in front of the home and office of Hyogo Prefectural Assemblyman Kenichi Okutani, the Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution did not reach the same conclusion for all three charges.

Defamation and forcible obstruction of business were deemed 'appropriate non-prosecution', while intimidation was deemed 'inappropriate non-prosecution'. In other words, not all non-prosecution decisions were rejected; rather, it was determined that further detailed investigation and re-evaluation were necessary regarding the intimidation charge.

From this example as well, it is necessary to read carefully by distinguishing not just the name of the resolution, but which conclusion was reached for which charge.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who selects the members of the Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution?

They are selected by lottery from among citizens who have the right to vote. One Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution consists of 11 members.

If a decision of 'inappropriate non-prosecution' is made, will the person definitely be prosecuted?

No. The public prosecutor will re-investigate and decide again whether to prosecute or not. There is a possibility that the case will result in non-prosecution again.

If it is 'appropriate prosecution', is there an immediate forced prosecution?

No. First, the public prosecutor will re-investigate. If the case results in non-prosecution again, it proceeds to the second stage of review, and if a resolution for prosecution is issued there, a designated lawyer will prosecute the case.

Can I observe the inquest meeting?

No. The Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution meetings are closed to the public. While a summary of the resolution may be published after the decision, the meeting itself is not public to protect the free discussion of the members.

Summary

• The Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution is a system where 11 citizens review a public prosecutor's decision not to prosecute.

• 'Appropriate non-prosecution' is a resolution that does not require a review of the non-prosecution decision.

• 'Inappropriate non-prosecution' is a resolution requesting further investigation and a re-evaluation of whether to prosecute or not.

• If a case is not prosecuted again, 'Appropriate for Prosecution' may proceed to a second stage of review.

• Forced prosecution requires a resolution for prosecution at the second stage.

• Neither resolution in itself implies guilt.

The Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution is a system that prevents criminal proceedings from ending solely with the prosecutor and reviews non-prosecution decisions from the perspective of citizens.

In the news, check not only the name of the resolution but also which charges the decision concerns, and at what stage—re-investigation, re-disposition, or trial—the case is.

If you like this, please give it a like and follow. I explain politics, economics, and legal systems in an easy-to-understand way, going beyond just the news headlines.

Recommended reading

• Takashi Tachibana and Prefectural Assemblyman Kenichi Okuya: The Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution's decision regarding the speech in front of his home

• No punishment for reckless acts disguised as political activity? The structural problem behind the non-prosecution of forcible obstruction of business in front of Prefectural Assemblyman Okuya's home

Reference materials

• Courts: 'Overview of the Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution'

• Courts: 'Flow of review at the Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution'

• e-Gov Law Search: 'Act on Committees for the Inquest of Prosecution'

▼ Read more

・Takashi Tachibana and Prefectural Assemblyman Kenichi Okuya: The Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution's decision regarding the speech in front of his home

https://note.com/poliplus/n/n816c58348cfa

・No punishment for reckless acts disguised as political activity? The structural problem behind the non-prosecution of forcible obstruction of business in front of Prefectural Assemblyman Okuya's home

https://note.com/poliplus/n/nd6c94d68b4bb

・Followers are not your assets—5 ways to have 'directly reachable readers' outside of SNS

https://note.com/poliplus/n/n173c44a08d04

・[20260622] Evading questions by 'claiming lack of sleep'? A thorough explanation of Prime Minister Takaichi's unprecedented Diet response and the shocking criminal complaint!

https://note.com/poliplus/n/n9fb368e6c6fc

・What does it mean when a 'criminal complaint is accepted'? Understanding damage reports, criminal complaints, referrals, and indictments in 5 stages

https://note.com/poliplus/n/nb3a9d2f501ea

▼Summary of this theme

・Summary of whistleblower protection and legal systems

https://note.com/poliplus/n/need62d9521af