Judge to be Changed Just Before Tokai Daini Nuclear Power Plant Appeals Court; Plaintiffs See Problems with His Past Representation of the State
Tokai Daini Nuclear Power Plant is under construction for restart, from the Oozuru helicopter in Tokai-mura, Ibaraki Prefecture, in August 2021.
January 25, 2023
The Tokyo High Court, which is in charge of the lawsuit against Japan Atomic Power Company’s Tokai No. 2 Nuclear Power Plant (Tokai-mura, Ibaraki Prefecture), is expected to move to a different division in the appeal trial of the injunction lawsuit against the plant’s operation. The plaintiffs’ lawyers had asked the presiding judge to voluntarily withdraw from the case, citing problems with the fact that he had represented the national government in past administrative lawsuits related to nuclear power plants. The first date of the appeal hearing, which was scheduled for March 31, has been canceled. (Mayumi Kojima)
Defense team “appreciates the decision.
According to the defense team, the chief judge in charge of the case, Norio Nagatani, worked for many years in the Litigation Division of the Ministry of Justice, which is in charge of proving the government’s case in administrative lawsuits. In addition to representing the government in several nuclear power plant-related lawsuits, he was also a councilor in charge of litigation and in a position to direct the administrative lawsuit (later withdrawn) that sought an injunction against the operation of Tokai No. 2 from the government.
Last September, Nagatani was transferred from the head of the Hiroshima District Court to the Tokyo High Court, where he became the presiding judge for the appeal of the injunction lawsuit. In December, the defense lawyers asked Nagatani to voluntarily withdraw from the case on the grounds that a fair trial would not be conducted.
According to attorney Yuichi Kaito of the defense team, on the 25th of this month, Mr. Nagatani explained to them that “in view of various circumstances, the case will be reassigned. A new department is expected to take over the proceedings.
At a press conference held in Tokyo on March 25, attorney Hiroyuki Kawai said, “Mr. Nagatani said he would be fair and neutral regardless of his background, but objectively speaking, there is an inference that he is siding with the administration. （I commend him for making the decision to change the case. Mr. Kaito said, “You should not be both the representative of the government and the presiding judge in administrative lawsuits. （The exchange of judges (between judges and prosecutors) was banned by the DPJ administration, and the exchange of judges with representatives of the state in administrative lawsuits should also have been banned,” he noted.
◆Although the motion was filed… “It is highly unusual for a judge to actually be replaced.”
The appeal of the injunction lawsuit against the Tokai No. 2 nuclear power plant by Japan Atomic Power Company (JAPC), which resulted in the unusual prospect of a change in the trial division in charge of the case, was heard by the court. It is rare for judges to be replaced under the same circumstances, and an expert pointed out that “the very fact that he tried to preside over the case in the first place shows a lack of common sense.
According to the plaintiffs’ lawyers in the Tokai No. 2 lawsuit, a Supreme Court judge avoided participating in the hearing of the Hyakuri Air Base (Ibaraki Prefecture) lawsuit, in which the constitutionality of the Self Defense Forces was disputed and the Supreme Court rejected the appeal in 1989, because he had been involved in the government’s substantiation activities in the past. In 1991, a judge at the Odawara Branch of the Yokohama District Court was replaced after the plaintiffs alleged that he had conducted the case in a way that favored the defendants.
In 2018, the Kanazawa Branch of the Nagoya High Court rejected a motion by the plaintiffs to replace a judge at the first instance court that had vacated an injunction on KEPCO’s Nos. 3 and 4 reactors at the Ooi Nuclear Power Plant in Fukui Prefecture. The Kanazawa District Court also rejected the plaintiffs’ motion for an injunction against Hokuriku Electric Power Co.’s Shiga Nuclear Power Plant (Ishikawa Prefecture), which is currently under litigation.
Former judge Hajime Tada, attorney-at-law, commented on the replacement motion, “It is often a kind of a warning shot to the court. It is extremely unusual for a judge to actually be replaced. In the case of Tokai Daini, he pointed out, “It cannot be said that the court can make a neutral decision, and it is quite natural for the court to change the trial division. He criticized the change, saying, “It shows that the court is leaning toward the administration and disrespects the independence of the judiciary. (Kenta Onozawa)
Plaintiffs’ Residents Welcome the Decision
The plaintiff residents living near the Tokai Daini Nuclear Power Plant voiced their surprise and welcome. Hiroko Kawano, 80, whose home is 1.7 km from the plant, said, “It was too badly done, so I am glad. I think the plaintiffs’ petition was approved,” she said happily.
She learned of Judge Norio Nagatani’s background at a rally held by the plaintiffs’ group in Tokyo on April 22. I thought the government was doing an amazing job,” he said. Although there is supposed to be separation of powers, it looks as if the government has intervened in the appointment of the court.
Kiyoko Aizawa, 81, of Tokai-mura, said, “I thought the government would continue to forcefully proceed. The news reports have been covering the situation, so perhaps they couldn’t just ignore it. Tokai No. 2 is decrepit, and there are many people living around it. I don’t know who the next presiding judge will be, but I definitely want to win.
A 74-year-old man living in Hitachi City, a neighbor to the north of Tokai Village, said, “The court effectively accepted our side of the story, and I think they really meant to hit us where it hurts. I don’t think the government’s major policy of wanting to overturn the first trial at any cost has changed. I don’t think the government has changed its major policy of wanting to overturn the first trial at any cost, and I think they may try some more tricks.
On the other hand, Japan Atomic Power Company (JAPC) responded to an interview with this newspaper, saying, “We do not know the details of the case, so we will refrain from commenting. (Nagasaki High School and University)
https://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/article/227401?fbclid=IwAR2M8pe0zQeUjHI6qABHn-U-W6rBcrAcd5A5jElo-qNPkMf9RmUGhNtz5w4
Fukushima: court upholds acquittals of three Tepco executives over disaster
High court in Japan agreed defendants could not have predicted the massive tsunami that crippled the power plant and triggered a nuclear meltdown
The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Okuma. Three Tepco executives have had their acquittals on negligence charges upheld by a court in Japan.
January 18, 2023
Three former executives from the company that operates the wrecked Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant have had their not-guilty verdicts upheld by a court in Japan, dealing a blow to campaigners demanding the firm take legal responsibility for the disaster in March 2011.
The Tokyo high court on Wednesday cleared Tsunehisa Katsumata, the former chairman of Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco), along with former vice-presidents Ichiro Takekuro and Sakae Muto, of professional negligence resulting in death.
The court said the defendants could not have predicted the massive tsunami that crippled the power plant and triggered the world’s worst nuclear accident since Chornobyl in 1986.
The three men were indicted in 2016 for allegedly failing to take measures to defend the plant against tsunamis, resulting in the deaths of 44 people, including elderly patients at a hospital, who had to be evacuated after the disaster.
The Fukushima Daiichi plant, on Japan’s north-eastern coast, was hit by a massive tsunami caused by a 9.0-magnitude earthquake, the strongest in Japan’s recorded history.
More than 18,000 people died in the tsunami, but no one was recorded as having been directly killed by the nuclear meltdowns, which caused massive radiation leaks and forced the evacuation of more than 150,000 people living nearby – some of whom have only recently been given permission to return to their homes.
Wednesday’s ruling affirmed a similar verdict delivered by the Tokyo district court in September 2019.
The trial focused on whether the former executives should have foreseen the massive tsunami and taken extra precautions, such as constructing a bigger seawall, to prevent a catastrophe.
A government evaluation of earthquake risks published in 2002 estimated that tsunami waves of up to 15.7 metres (51ft) in height could strike Fukushima Daiichi. The findings were passed on to Tepco in 2008 – three years before the disaster when a 14-metre wave struck, the Kyodo news agency said.
Tepco has argued it was powerless to take precautions against a tsunami of the size that struck the plant almost 12 years ago, and that it had done everything possible to protect it.
The original district court ruling, however, cast doubt on the credibility of the government’s evaluation, saying the defendants “could not have logically predicted tsunami waves over 10 metres in height”, Kyodo reported.
Although they have twice been acquitted in the only criminal case against Tepco executives arising from the disaster, a separate verdict in July in a civil case against the same three men and Tepco’s former president, Masataka Shimizu, ordered them to pay ¥13.32tn (£80bn at the time) for failing to prevent the disaster.
In contrast to Wednesday’s decision, the court said the government’s assessment had been reliable enough to oblige Tepco to take preventive measures.
While that ruling – the first to find Tepco executives liable for damage resulting from the disaster – carries symbolic significance, lawyers have said the defendants do not have the means to pay the sum, believed to be the largest ever awarded in a civil lawsuit in Japan.
Media reports said they would be expected to pay as much as their assets allowed.
Where the judgement of the Tokyo High Court went wrong
Credits to Yuichi Kaido
January 18, 2023
If you read this, you can understand that yesterday’s decision by the Tokyo High Court considers nuclear power safety measures inadequate and prepare for the next brutal accident.
At the beginning of the attorney general’s statement published yesterday, we said: Regarding the long-term evaluation of the projection, the verdict said, “as a country, it is debated and placed weight that cannot be overlooked,” but in this view, it denied the necessity for tsunami measures based on the research findings to base this, and the reliability based on the “real possibility” of stopping nuclear power plants from running.
Seeking “realistic possibilities” about scientific opinion based on accident measures is clearly a mistake, given the current state of geology. I believe such a judgement exonerates not taking necessary accident measures and dangerous logic to prepare for the next nuclear accident. “
I think the conclusion is clear which of these two decisions will withstand the criticism of history by Judge Hosoda, who refused the local inspection, flipped the empty arguments on the desk and wrote an empty verdict, will stand up to the criticism of history.
*******************
The degree of credibility required by knowledge
Since operators who install (and operate nuclear power plants have a duty above all to prevent brutal accidents, the safety of nuclear power plants is impaired by the expected tsunami (predictable tsunami) based on the latest scientific and technical findings, the safety of the nuclear power plant plants is impaired, and if brutal accidents occur, they are obliged to take necessary measures to prevent this, and the director recognizes the risk, or can take action. As explained in No. 2 (The defendants’ duty of good governance as the director of Tokyo Electric Power).
Conversely, at nuclear power plant, the risk of accidents occurring in case of an event that exceeds the expected is greatly different between earthquakes and tsunami, and if you use only a dry site concept like the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant as a measure against tsunami, it is absolutely safe as long as the tsunami does not exceed the expected height, but if it exceeds the expected height, there will be a cliff edge incident that causes sudden damage to the core and reaches the core, due to a severe accident caused by loss of all power. Therefore, if our predictions are credible for scientifically predicted tsunami, it will be extremely important to avoid the presumed tsunami measures.
Therefore, considering whether a certain degree of credibility is required in order to have scientific opinion on predictions of tsunami, which is required for the director of the company that sets up and runs nuclear power plants to avoid measures
(1) If safety measures are taken as a prerequisite for tsunami in the world, and the company that operates and operates nuclear power plants, and safety is the first priority, while in reality, resources are limited, etc., etc., and if safety measures are a priority, as a prelude to all the predictions of tsunami of all the contents that exist in the world, (there is a risk of lack of resources (without resources and resources) that should be allocated for the truly necessary measures, or there is a surplus.
There is a risk of incalculable risk of bodily safety. It is therefore believed that in nuclear engineering, zero risk is not required, and safety measures should be taken that do not create undue risks ( 生155).
On the other hand, scientific findings, often earthquakes and tsunami. Opinions on natural phenomena are constantly advancing and developing that natural phenomena, such as earthquakes and tsunami, are essentially a matter of the galaxy, and since it is principle impossible to make complete predictions. Since it is impossible to experiment on them, we can only learn from past events, but there is a limit that there is little data from the past. Therefore, with regard to findings widely considered established, i.e. not the latest scientific findings, not necessarily all researchers agree, the latest scientific opinion, where clarification and understanding are currently progressing, there will essentially be researchers who disagree. Therefore, for example, if you ask for excessive reliability of scientific findings in the pretext of tsunami, such as the absence of disagreement among researchers, or the attached data is complete, the tsunami that is waiting to happen will not be sufficient, and the safety of nuclear power plants will not be shaken (severe accidents caused by the loss of all power).
Therefore, when considering these collectively, in order to have scientific findings on tsunami predictions that are required by the directors of companies that establish and operate nuclear power plants to avoid measures, the findings expressed in the papers of certain researchers and so on are not enough, for example, in public institutions and councils that consider tsunami forecasts, serious scrutiny has been made among researchers and experts who have a considerable amount of research practice in that field, You have to understand that there is and enough. And in the case of such findings, it can be said that unless there are specific circumstances such as collected despite being scientifically and strictly unreasonable, the director of the company that installs and operates the nuclear power plant can be obliged to follow the tsunami measures based on that findings.
(2)a In this regard, the defendants and Tokyo Electric Power Corporation are required to quote the opinion of Professor Imamura ( 、156) regarding the scientific findings of the predictions of tsunami, where the CEO of the company that operates and operates nuclear power plants are required to take measures, and to be able to justify the need for measures, using a scientific basis, specifically, the tsunami, or at least the scientific consensus has been obtained that it is always tsunami, in which there is a scientific consensus that it is always a tsunami or at least a scientific basis. Insisting on needing and etc.
の However, if interpreted as the above assertion, many researchers and experts with relevant practice recognize that it is reasonable to assume that there is a chance of large-scale tsunami earthquake occurring in a certain area, when the location of wave sources cannot be calculated on a specific basis and the interval of occurrence over a certain period of time, the director of the company operating nuclear power plant is a measure to prevent severe accidents from tsunami (Opinion of Prof. Imamura According to this thinking, if an unexpected tsunami occurs at a nuclear power plant, the Cliff Edge event is likely to cause extremely severe damage due to loss of total power. If the prediction is credible, it would be necessary to avoid tsunami measures, but not to take measures except certain things, i.e. the severity of total power loss due to a tsunami, if the prediction is reliable. It is clear that it is unreasonable, given the importance of ensuring the high safety of nuclear power plants, which is hidden in standards related to the standard of safety etc.
考 Also, views like the above claim require that, in addition to the credibility of scientific findings, the information for nuclear companies to take easy measures is clear, but since there are some uncertainties in the findings, it is possible to take measures with the appropriate room taken into account on the safety side (this opinion indicates that it is dangerous, but it is unreasonable that measures cannot be mandatory if it is not indicated what extent to take. ), overstating the convenience of measures by nuclear power operators rather than ensuring safety is not acceptable.
According to the construction industry (I have to say that the allegations made by the defendants and Tokyo Electric Power Corporation are difficult to accept.
Tokyo court upholds not guilty verdict for ex-Tepco execs over Fukushima disaster
Support group members of plaintiffs show off banners reading “All innocent. Wrongful judgment” after the The Tokyo High Court upheld a not guilty verdict for former Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) executives of negligence over the 2011 Fukushima nuclear power station disaster, in front of the court in Tokyo, Japan, January 18, 2023
TOKYO, Jan 18 (Reuters) – The Tokyo High Court on Wednesday upheld a not guilty criminal verdict by a lower court that cleared former Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) (9501.T) executives of negligence over the 2011 Fukushima nuclear power station disaster.
Former Tepco Chairman Tsunehisa Katsumata, 82, and one-time executives Sakae Muto, 72, and Ichiro Takekuro, 77, were all found not guilty by the Tokyo District Court in 2019, in the only criminal case to arise out of the world’s worst nuclear crisis since the Chernobyl disaster in 1986.
The ruling on Wednesday to uphold the not guilty verdict sits at odds with a separate civil case brought to the Tokyo court by Tepco shareholders, which found four former executives responsible for the 2011 nuclear disaster.
Judges ordered the former executives to pay 13 trillion yen ($99.14 billion) in damages in the civil lawsuit. The court judged that the executives could have prevented the disaster if they had exercised due care. Criminal lawsuits in Japan are broadly interpreted to have a higher standard of proof than civil cases.
“I’m really surprised. Most other lawsuits have found that Tepco is guilty, so I can’t understand why the criminal court is the odd one out,” said Masako Sawai, who is part of a civil group accusing the former executives of negligence.
The trial, which started in June 2017, was conducted by state-appointed lawyers after prosecutors decided not to bring charges against the Tepco executives.
“We are aware that there is an ongoing lawsuit over the criminal responsibility of three former executives regarding the nuclear disaster, but we will refrain from commenting on the case,” a spokesperson for Tepco said.
The Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear station, located about 220 kilometres (130 miles) northeast of Tokyo, was rocked by a magnitude 9.0 earthquake and subsequent tsunami in March 2011, sparking three reactor meltdowns and prompting Japan to shut down its entire fleet of nuclear reactors.
TEPCO’s former management forced to indict former management.
Just a travesty of justice: The designated attorney requested an on-site inspection at the appeal hearing, but the trial concluded today without such an inspection.
June 6, 2022
The appeal trial for the mandatory prosecution of three former TEPCO executives over the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, in which they were acquitted at the first trial, concluded today without an on-site inspection.
Former TEPCO Chairman Tsunehisa Katsumata and three other former TEPCO executives were indicted on charges of manslaughter in connection with the nuclear accident.
The first trial court acquitted them in 2019 on the grounds that “it is not recognized that they could have predicted the occurrence of a huge tsunami,” and the designated lawyer acting as the prosecutor appealed the verdict.
At the appeal hearing held today at the Tokyo High Court, the designated lawyer pointed out that “the three could and should have foreseen the tsunami,” based on the “long-term assessment” issued by the government’s earthquake headquarters before the disaster. He argued that the first trial court’s decision to deny the reliability of the long-term assessment was erroneous.
The defense, on the other hand, argued for acquittal on the grounds that “there was no error in the first trial.
The designated attorney requested an on-site inspection at the appeal hearing, but the trial concluded today without such an inspection.
https://newsdig.tbs.co.jp/articles/-/63459?display=1
Three former TEPCO executives to be sentenced on appeal in December-January, or forced prosecution for nuclear accident.
June 6, 2022
On June 6, the Tokyo High Court (presided over by Keisuke Hosoda) held the third hearing of an appeal against three former TEPCO executives who were indicted on charges of manslaughter and death for negligence in connection with the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident and failure to take tsunami countermeasures. The designated attorney acting as the prosecutor requested that the Tokyo District Court ruling acquitting the three be reversed, and the defense reiterated its plea of not guilty at the conclusion of the trial. The verdict is expected in December or January next year.
The three defendants are Tsunehisa Katsumata, 82, former chairman; Ichiro Takekuro, 76, former vice president; and Sakae Mutoh, 71, former vice president. The main point of contention, as in the first trial, is whether the three defendants were able to foresee the occurrence of the giant tsunami and whether they were able to take measures to prevent the accident.
Designated Lawyer: “The First-Instance Judgment is Wrong
The district court ruling in 2007 rejected the reliability of the “long-term evaluation” of earthquake forecasts released by the government in 2002, and ruled that the earthquake was not foreseeable enough to shut down the plant.
On the day of the hearing, the designated attorney appealed that the first instance decision was erroneous, citing the example of the reliability of the long-term assessment being recognized in a civil court ruling on liability for the accident. He stated, “If reliability is recognized, the validity of the first instance judgment will be overturned from the bottom up.”
The defense, on the other hand, countered that the fact-finding process in a criminal trial is different from that in a civil trial, and that “this is no basis for holding that the first-instance decision was erroneous.
According to the representatives of the families of the victims in the criminal trial, the high court explained after the conclusion of the trial that it would set the date for the verdict in December or January of next year.
https://www.asahi.com/articles/ASQ666G1BQ66UTIL01Z.html?fbclid=IwAR2xTS7IOPmNLwpMZsg1IPg8jscudVShWhxI-2n1YH2o2dQA2qi5h-kX2Ck
Appeal Hearings End for 3 Ex-TEPCO Execs over 2011 Meltdowns
June 6, 2022
Tokyo, June 6 (Jiji Press)–Tokyo High Court concluded on Monday hearings for three former executives of Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc. <9501> in an appeal trial over the 2011 meltdowns at its Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant.
The three are former Chairman Tsunehisa Katsumata, 82, and former executive vice presidents Sakae Muto, 71, and Ichiro Takekuro, 76. The court is likely to issue its verdict in December or the following month, according to an attorney in the trial.
The trio came under mandatory indictment on charges of professional negligence resulting in death and injury over the unprecedented triple meltdown at TEPCO’s Fukushima No. 1 plant in northeastern Japan and were acquitted in the first trial.
In the first trial, hearings were held 37 times, while only three hearings took place for the appeal, including the first one in November last year.
Lawyers appointed to act as prosecutors had asked judges to conduct on-site inspections and demanded former senior officials of the Japan Meteorological Agency testify about the government’s long-term assessments of earthquake and tsunami risks.
Tokyo High Court rejects some of the evidence used in the second appeal against the former management of TEPCO
Feb. 9, 2022
A trial to hold the former management of Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) criminally liable. In the second appeal hearing, the court rejected the witness examination and on-site inspection at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant that the designated lawyer acting as the prosecutor had requested.
Tsunehisa Katsumata, former chairman of TEPCO, who was the top management of TEPCO at the time of the nuclear accident, and three other members of the former management team, were charged with manslaughter and forced to stand trial for allegedly failing to take countermeasures against the tsunami at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant and causing the death of a patient at a nearby hospital due to evacuation.
The Tokyo District Court in the first trial acquitted them, saying that they could not have foreseen the tsunami, and the designated lawyer acting as the prosecutor appealed.
In the first trial of the appeal held last November, the court’s decision was closely watched, as the court demanded the adoption of documents and witness interviews of experts to support the reliability of the government’s earthquake assessment.
Ms. Riko Muto, head of the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Appeal Team, said, “I trust the conscience of the court to find out why the nuclear accident occurred, why it could not have been prevented, and who is responsible for this.
The second trial was held on the 9th. The presiding judge of the Tokyo High Court, Keisuke Hosoda, adopted as evidence the documents submitted by the designated lawyer acting as the prosecutor.
On the other hand, he dismissed as “unnecessary” the questioning of three witnesses, including experts involved in the formulation of the government’s earthquake assessment, and refused to conduct on-site inspections at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant and other facilities.
Hiroyuki Kawai, lawyer for the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Lawsuit Group: “I feel disappointed. I didn’t see the slightest sign of a desire to determine the responsibility of the defendants for causing the biggest pollution incident in Japan’s history.
Criminal case of the three TEPCO former executives in appeal
A trial in which three former executives of Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) were forcibly prosecuted by a resolution of the Public Prosecutors Examination Council for failing to prevent the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.
This is a detailed record of the second trial.
The second trial of TEPCO’s forced prosecution began, with the former management once again claiming innocence.
The second trial of the three former executives of Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), who were forcibly prosecuted over the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant and acquitted in the first trial, began, with the former executives once again claiming their innocence.
Tsunehisa Katsumata, 81, former chairman of TEPCO, Ichiro Takekuro, 75, former vice president of TEPCO, and Sakae Mutoh, 71, former vice president of TEPCO, were indicted for involuntary manslaughter by a resolution of the Public Prosecutors Examination Council for causing the deaths of 44 people, including hospitalized patients in Fukushima Prefecture, during the evacuation process from the nuclear power plant accident.
The Tokyo District Court in the first trial acquitted all three defendants in September 2019, saying that there was no way they could have foreseen the huge tsunami.
The second trial began at the Tokyo High Court on April 2, 2021, and the designated lawyer stated that the first trial decision was wrong because it forcibly denied the reliability of the “long-term assessment,” which is the basic premise of the national government’s view on tsunamis, and argued that the three had a duty to build a seawall and take measures to prevent flooding of buildings.
On the other hand, the lawyer for the former management team reiterated their not guilty plea, saying, “The measures to prevent a huge tsunami were massive and took a long time, and even if they had started before the nuclear accident, they would not have been ready in time.
The next hearing will be held in February 2022, and it will be decided whether or not the judge will conduct an on-site inspection of the plant, as requested by the designated lawyer.
A representative of the victims and their families said, “The focus is on whether the court will conduct an on-site inspection of the plant.
Yuichi Kaito, a lawyer who represented the victims and their families at the hearing, held a press conference and said, “The biggest focus of the second trial is whether the court will conduct an on-site inspection of the plant. Although the court did not make a decision today, I hope that this is an indication of the court’s attitude that it wants to carefully consider the issue. If they do, I think it will increase the possibility that the not guilty verdict of the first trial will be reviewed.
Survivors: “Not guilty is impossible
The father of Hisao Sato, 62, of Fukushima Prefecture, was unable to evacuate from Futaba Hospital in Okuma Town, where he had been hospitalized, after the nuclear accident, and remained there with medical staff and died three days later.
Regarding the fact that the three former executives of TEPCO have once again claimed their innocence, Mr. Sato said, “I couldn’t go and pick up the people who were left behind even if I wanted to because the nuclear power plant exploded. There were tears around the eyes of his father, and I believe he suffered and died. Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) is absolutely responsible, and there is no way they are innocent.
https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/special/toudensaiban/?fbclid=IwAR19G_iZOeA8x_1s-x6bDhzeGxz3jsDC-Y90iDjpB0zPEoaIT8QCPahEP-0
Criminal trial of Fukushima nuclear power plant to reach climax at high court on Feb. 9; adoption or rejection of on-site inspection and other measures key
Feb. 7, 2022
The trial to hold former executives of Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) criminally responsible for the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant is reaching a climax in the appeals court. The second trial, to be held at the Tokyo High Court on February 9 at 2:00 p.m., is expected to determine the future course of the trial, according to the designated lawyer acting as the prosecutor and a criminal litigation support group. The reason is that the presiding judge, Keisuke Hosoda, will decide whether to accept or reject (1) the on-site inspection at the nuclear power plant site and (2) the examination of three experts.
Since mid-January, a group of residents who have sued and accused TEPCO executives, criminal lawsuit supporters, and lawyers have held a series of press conferences and meetings to explain the current status of the trial, and on January 21, they submitted a list of signatures in front of the Tokyo High Court demanding a fair trial.
There are about 30 class-action lawsuits across the country seeking damages from TEPCO and the government as civil liability for the Fukushima nuclear accident, with more than 12,000 plaintiffs in total. The total number of plaintiffs is over 12,000. Including individual lawsuits, there are more than 400 cases, but this is the only case in which criminal liability has been sought.
In June 2012, the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Complaint Group filed a complaint against TEPCO executives and government officials. In June 2012, a group of Fukushima nuclear power plant complainants filed a complaint against TEPCO executives and government officials, and prosecutors repeatedly dropped the case. After the prosecutors’ panel twice voted that the case was worth prosecuting, former TEPCO chairman Tsunehisa Katsumata and former vice presidents Ichiro Takekuro and Sakae Mutoh were indicted for manslaughter, and their trial has been ongoing since June 2005. The prosecution alleged that the defendants failed to take protective measures and shut down the reactors when they could have foreseen the possibility of flooding of the buildings, loss of power supply, and explosion due to a tsunami exceeding 10 meters in height, which is the height of the site of the plant.
The Tokyo District Court (presiding Judge Kenichi Nagabuchi) acquitted all three defendants in September 2007, but Yuichi Kaito, a lawyer with the Criminal Litigation Support Lawyers Association, and others pointed out the “biggest and most fundamental error” in the original verdict. The lawyers for the criminal case, including Yuichi Kaido, claimed that the “biggest and most fundamental error” in the original ruling was that the government’s Headquarters for Earthquake Research Promotion (SUIBON) stated that “there was no foreseeable possibility of a tsunami exceeding 10 meters” without properly judging the reliability of the “long-term assessment” released in July 2002. In response to the long-term assessment, which predicted that a tsunami earthquake of magnitude 8.2 could occur anywhere along the Japan Trench from off the coast of Sanriku to off the coast of Boso, the court only ruled whether the plant should be shut down, and did not examine the “foreseeability appropriate for imposing the obligation to avoid the consequences of building seawalls and making facilities watertight. The report criticizes the government for not examining the “foreseeability that is appropriate for imposing the obligation to avoid the consequences of building seawalls and making facilities watertight.
The designated attorneys reiterated the necessity of on-site inspections in the appeals court. It is obvious at the site that the facilities of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant were built on the ground where a high quay was dug into the sea, and it is easy to understand where a tsunami barrier should have been installed and where watertight construction should have been carried out. It should be.
Three witnesses have been called: Atsuo Watanabe, a former nuclear power plant design engineer at Toshiba Corporation, to provide additional evidence on the specifics of the measures taken to avoid the consequences of submerging the facility and their feasibility; Nobuo Hamada, a former director of the Earthquake and Volcano Division at the Japan Meteorological Agency, and Kunihiko Shimazaki, chairman of the Long-Term Assessment Department at SUIMOTO, to prove the reliability of the long-term assessment.
Takashi Soeda, a science journalist, said, “There are many things that would have been buried in the dark without the criminal trial. (1) Based on surveys of past tsunami deposits, it was possible to predict a tsunami as large as the 869 Teikan earthquake, and Tohoku Electric Power Co. and other companies besides TEPCO had been working on tsunami countermeasures. (2) TEPCO and its employees agreed that a 15.7-meter tsunami was inevitable, but senior management prioritized avoiding management risk over avoiding accident risk and delayed tsunami countermeasures (3) In order to delay countermeasures, Sakae Muto asked the Japan Society of Civil Engineers (3) Mr. Sakae Muto had instructed the Japan Society of Civil Engineers to delay the countermeasures by stalling for time and laying the groundwork for experts to discuss the matter.
One of the victims, Ruiko Muto, a resident of Tamura City, Fukushima Prefecture, said, “If the district court’s decision is confirmed as it is, it would be extremely unjust. Ten years have passed since the accident, and in Fukushima there is no justice at all. We must not leave this kind of society to future generations. I hope the court will show justice.
http://www.kinyobi.co.jp/kinyobinews/2022/02/07/antena-1067/?fbclid=IwAR1x4Hq2ILZ432ZlOn6MVRjkDvOKbjq7QFw9PGIB48Jcg6PlB8X_wTHfyGA
Signatures submitted to Tokyo High Court for site inspection, totaling 10,195
Jan. 21, 2022
On the morning of January 21, in the cold wind, the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Criminal Litigation Support Group submitted the third round of signatures to the Tokyo High Court to demand that the presiding judge of the 10th Criminal Division of the Tokyo High Court, Keisuke Hosoda, decide on the on-site inspection and examination of witnesses.
In the criminal trial of the three former TEPCO executives who were forcibly indicted, the appeal trial at the Tokyo High Court started in November last year, and the key is to realize the on-site verification by the judges who were not employed in the first trial.
At the second trial on February 9 at 2:00 p.m., the decision on whether or not to hold the on-site inspection and witness examination will be made, and this will be a major turning point in the appeal trial.
At 10:30 a.m. on the morning of the 21st, more than 100 citizens gathered in front of the Tokyo High Court, despite the bitter cold, and the leader of the support group and lawyers representing the victims, Kaito and Okawa, appealed to the Tokyo High Court to conduct on-site inspection and questioning of witnesses.
A little after 11:00 a.m., the leader of the support group and other representatives of the group, including attorneys Kaito and Okawa, submitted their signatures to the Criminal Division 10 of the Tokyo High Court. A total of 10,195 signatures were submitted so far, including 2,151 for the third round.
While taking measures against coronary infection, the participants once again confirmed that they would rally for the second trial on February 9 at 2:00 p.m., aiming for victory in the appeal trial of the Fukushima nuclear power plant criminal trial to hold TEPCO responsible for the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident.
Japan gov’t, TEPCO ordered to pay $2.63 mil. over Fukushima nuclear crisis
Plaintiffs’ lawyers hold banners in front of the Tokyo High Court on Feb. 19, 2021, that say they have won a damages suit against the government and Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc. over the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident.
February 19, 2021
TOKYO (Kyodo) — A Japanese high court on Friday overturned a lower court decision that dismissed the state’s responsibility in the 2011 nuclear crisis, ordering both the government and the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant’s operator to pay damages to 43 people who had to evacuate from their hometowns as a result.
The Tokyo High Court ordered the state to cover the total damages of 278 million yen ($2.63 million) together with Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc., following the precedent set by the Sendai High Court last September.
It marked the third high court ruling among 30 similar lawsuits filed across the country, and the second in which both the state and the utility were ordered to pay damages over radioactive contamination following the meltdowns at the plant.
Presiding Judge Yukio Shiraishi said it was “extremely unreasonable” for the government not to use its regulatory power to force the operator widely known as TEPCO to take preventive measures against the tsunami that triggered the world’s worst nuclear accident since the 1986 Chernobyl disaster.
If it had done so, “the impact of the tsunami would have been significantly reduced, and the facility would not have lost all power,” he said.
The court also ruled that the evacuees should be compensated for their mental distress, in addition to the 100,000 yen per month to be awarded to them as consolation for prolonged evacuation.
In a lawsuit filed with the Chiba District Court, 45 people collectively sought around 2.8 billion yen in damages from the government and the plant operator after they were forced to move from Fukushima Prefecture to Chiba Prefecture, near Tokyo.
In 2017, the district court told TEPCO to pay a total of 376 million yen to 42 of the evacuees, but cleared the state of liability, prompting the plaintiffs to appeal the decision.
The focal point of the lower court case was whether the government and utility were able to foresee the huge tsunami that hit the coastal plant on March 11, 2011, and take preventive measures beforehand based on the government’s long-term earthquake assessment that was made public in 2002.
The Chiba court ruled that both the state and TEPCO could have predicted the tsunami, but the accident may have been unavoidable even if preventive steps had been taken.
In contrast with Friday’s ruling, the district court ruled the government’s failure to exercise regulatory power to force TEPCO to take preventive measures was “not unreasonable.”
In January, the Tokyo High Court also deemed the government was not responsible for the nuclear disaster in a suit filed by plaintiffs who evacuated to Gunma Prefecture, eastern Japan, and elsewhere. https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20210219/p2g/00m/0dm/001000d
-
Archives
- June 2023 (89)
- May 2023 (344)
- April 2023 (348)
- March 2023 (308)
- February 2023 (379)
- January 2023 (388)
- December 2022 (277)
- November 2022 (335)
- October 2022 (363)
- September 2022 (259)
- August 2022 (367)
- July 2022 (368)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 