Japan's legal landscape is facing a pivotal moment as calls to end the shackling of defendants in courtrooms gain momentum. The practice, once considered routine, is now under scrutiny for its potential violation of human rights.
Lawyers and advocates are leading the charge, arguing that courtroom restraints undermine the fundamental principle of presumption of innocence. By October 2023, a significant coalition, including the Japan Federation of Bar Associations (JFBA) and nine regional bar associations, had united to demand an end to this practice.
The JFBA has elevated this issue to a national priority, adopting a resolution in October 2022 that urges courts to ensure defendants are not publicly restrained. This marks a significant shift in perspective, as one attorney involved in the campaign noted, "It's finally being recognized as a human rights issue."
Naoki Koyama's personal experience highlights the impact of this practice. A former host club worker, Koyama was arrested in December 2023 and faced charges of abandoning a corpse at the Nagoya District Court. During his 320-day detention, he was brought into court in handcuffs and with a rope tied around his waist. Koyama's recollection of the experience is powerful: "I hated being stared at. I felt like I was being put on display."
After being released on bail during the trial, Koyama's appearance in court without restraints was a stark contrast. He shared, "Even though I was still a defendant, I felt like I was finally standing on equal footing with the prosecutors." In March 2025, Koyama was acquitted, and the ruling stands as a testament to the importance of this issue.
Japan's Code of Criminal Procedure clearly states that defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the use of physical restraints in court is generally prohibited. However, the reality is more complex. The rule's application is limited to the time between when the judge declares the court in session and when it is adjourned.
Typically, defendants enter the courtroom wearing handcuffs and a waist shackle, and the judge orders their removal just before proceedings begin. In trials involving lay judges, the handcuffs are released earlier to prevent prejudgment. This variation in practice underscores the need for a consistent and respectful approach.
The Osaka Bar Association took a pioneering step by formally studying the issue in 2017. Their survey of defendants who had been brought into court in restraints revealed that over 60% felt they were being treated like criminals. Maya Kawasaki, vice-chairperson of the study team, emphasized the responsibility of lawyers who had previously ignored this issue.
In 2019, the Osaka District Court ruled on a lawsuit filed by two former defendants who had suffered emotional distress from being publicly handcuffed. The court acknowledged the legitimacy of the expectation that handcuffs would not be displayed inappropriately to the public, stating that this expectation "deserves legal protection." The ruling suggested practical measures, such as removing handcuffs behind a partition or allowing the public to enter only after restraints are removed.
Kawasaki noted that while some judges do implement these precautions, many courts do not allow them at all. According to the Supreme Court of Japan's public relations division, each court has the authority to decide how to handle defendants based on its "courtroom police powers." An anonymous active judge highlighted practical constraints, stating that taking extra time to remove handcuffs out of sight could increase staff workloads and lead to delays in busy district courts.
As the legal community and the public apply pressure, Japan's courts are confronted with the challenge of balancing security with the dignity and rights of those presumed innocent. Kawasaki emphasized the importance of the courts' commitment to protecting human rights, stating that it would also strengthen public trust in the justice system.
This issue is a critical test of Japan's commitment to human rights and the fair treatment of defendants. The outcome will have far-reaching implications for the country's legal system and its relationship with its citizens.
