The right to a fair trial is a foundational principle of global criminal justice systems. Japan boasts a conviction rate that often surpasses 99%. This figure is often misinterpreted internationally as a sign of outstanding judicial efficiency. However, this can obscure a more troubling reality: that convictions may be secured through coercive practices that risk forcing innocent people to confess to crimes that they did not commit. This post highlights these issues by contrasting them within the safeguards present within the English system.

In England, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 provides suspects with various safeguards for suspects during police interviews. Suspects must be made aware that they have the right to remain silent (PACE Code C Section 10.5) and be cautioned that interviews are recorded (PACE Code E Section 3.4). Arguably, the most fundamental right of all for suspects is the right to legal advice (PACE Code C Section 6.1). However, within the Japanese legal system, access to a lawyer is limited.

While Japan also has the constitutional right to remain silent, there is no right for a suspect to have a lawyer present during interrogation. It is common practice for police and prosecutors to question suspects without the suspect having a lawyer present. Furthermore, the vast majority of interrogations in Japan are not fully recorded with both audio and video, leaving reliance on a police officer’s written summary of the confession. This has left the Japanese judicial system without means for independent checks on how questioning is conducted.

The duration and conditions of police detention also significantly differ between England and Japan. The maximum detention period without charge in England for any offence outside of terrorism is 96 hours. Suspects must also be given access to food and water and allowed an eight-hour period free from questioning. However, in practice interrogations typically last no more than a few hours at most.

In Japan, pre-charge police custody can legally last up to 23 days and it is standard practice to apply to the courts for two 10-day extensions. Interrogation sessions in Japan are often prolonged and repetitive, taking place for many hours over multiple days: previous studies have shown that police interrogation in Japan typically lasts around 20 hours, and in more serious cases, 40 hours. The case of Carlos Ghosn is arguably the most high-profile incident, where he was reported to have been interrogated for 500 hours while in custody. Unnecessarily lengthy and often high-pressure interrogations are shown to be likely to increase the risk of false confessions.

In England, any confession must pass a strict voluntariness test in court. Judges have the power to exclude statements obtained by oppression or in circumstances that make them unreliable. Suspects can freely say ‘no comment’ throughout an interview without jeopardising their trials.

In Japan, confession is culturally viewed as a step towards rehabilitation and suspects are strongly discouraged from using the right to remain silent. Even when the right to remain silent is invoked by the suspect, the Japanese police are still permitted to continue to interrogate the suspect. It has been referred to as ‘a duty to endure interrogation’ by critics.

While extracting confessions by torture, compulsion and threats is technically forbidden in Japan, it is difficult to prove that a confession was involuntary. Courts typically believe that signed confessions are voluntaryunless there is clear and direct evidence of misconduct, leaving little recourse for the accused. Investigators in Japan have also been reported to commonly use psychological pressure and relentless questioning to elicit admissions. Suspects who insist on their innocence or remain silent often face longer custody and are denied bail on the ground that they may destroy evidence.

Several features of Japan’s criminal justice system structurally reinforce these concerns about prolonged detention and coerced confessions. One such feature translates into English roughly as the ‘Substitute Prison’ system, which permits suspects to be held in police detention facilities for weeks during the investigation instead of in independent remand centres. Police also have the power to re-arrest a suspect on sequential charges to reset the 23-day detention limit. This typically results in a single incident being broken into several charges and allowing custody to continue unchecked for several months. During their detention, courts will also frequently issue contact prohibition orders, which prevent the suspect from communicating with friends or family. While the official reason is to prevent evidence tampering, the practice of forced isolation for a prolonged period heavily influences the psychological pressure to give a false confession. Because most interrogations lack full recordings and defence lawyers are absent, any abusive tactics often escape meaningful judicial scrutiny.

This analysis demonstrates that the deficiencies in Japan’s criminal justice system pose a serious challenge to the fairness and reliability of criminal proceedings. Addressing these shortcomings through both legislative and procedural reforms, including the full audiovisual recording of interrogations, is vital to safeguarding the rights of suspects.