Recently, it was discovered that court judgments related to two male defendants from Shiga University of Medical Science were being sold on Mercari, sparking controversy. The listings included three court judgments: a guilty verdict from the first trial and an acquittal from the appeals trial. These documents were sold as copies from a paid legal database. What drew particular attention was that the full text of the Osaka High Court’s appeals ruling, which had not been publicly disclosed, was available for purchase.
Public Disclosure of Court Judgments and Legal Issues
Court judgments are, in principle, public documents. However, their full texts are rarely disclosed to the public, and usually, only summaries are reported by the media. On the other hand, the paid database “TKC Law Library” sometimes contains the full text of court rulings, which is accessible to legal professionals such as lawyers.
The seller on Mercari explained that they had printed the judgment from a paid database at a library and promoted it as a cheaper alternative to subscribing to the paid service. However, the usage terms of TKC Law Library explicitly prohibit any use beyond personal or internal use. Therefore, selling court judgments in this manner constitutes a violation of the database’s terms of use.
Additionally, Mercari removed the listings, citing them as violations of intellectual property rights. This raises the question: Do court judgments themselves have copyright protection?
Copyright Issues with Court Judgments
Generally, court judgments in Japan are considered public documents and are not protected under copyright law as “creative works.” However, when a judgment is compiled and formatted within a database like TKC Law Library, the company operating the database retains rights over its format and editorial arrangement.
Thus, while selling the court judgment itself may not necessarily be illegal, copying and selling data from TKC Law Library is a contract violation. Given that Mercari identified a breach of the database’s terms, its decision to remove the listings was a reasonable one.
Ethical Concerns Regarding the Sale of Court Judgments
Beyond legal issues, the sale of court judgments also raises ethical concerns. This particular case involved a sexual assault trial, making it especially distressing for many people that such sensitive documents were being traded as commodities.
Additionally, this case gained significant public attention because of the reversal from a guilty verdict in the first trial to an acquittal in the appeals trial. This raises concerns that selling court judgments might undermine public trust in the legitimacy and fairness of court decisions.
Furthermore, court judgments may contain sensitive information about victims and other involved parties. If any details that could compromise the privacy of victims were included, the sale of such documents could lead to secondary harm.
The Need to Reconsider the Disclosure of Court Judgments
This incident highlights the need to reexamine the system for disclosing court judgments in Japan.
Court judgments play a crucial role in ensuring judicial transparency. However, in Japan, the full text of court judgments is rarely disclosed, making legal professionals reliant on subscription-based databases.
In contrast, countries like the United States have systems such as PACER, where court judgments are generally publicly available for anyone to access. Japan may also need to establish fair and structured disclosure rules that allow broader access to court judgments under specific conditions.
Future Implications and Mercari’s Response
Mercari’s response, which prioritized intellectual property protection, was legally sound. However, the issue of selling court judgments could arise again in the future.
Moreover, as digitalization progresses, handling court judgments will become increasingly complex. For example, AI-powered legal search tools and automated summarization technologies could make court decisions more easily accessible and distributable.
Platforms like Mercari must continue to monitor court judgment listings, while society as a whole must discuss appropriate access and disclosure standards for court judgments.
Conclusion
This incident has shed light on the legal and ethical challenges surrounding the handling of court judgments. While current systems restrict access, it has become evident that judgments can still be easily circulated if regulations are ignored.
Moving forward, the challenge will be to balance judicial transparency, intellectual property rights, and victim protection. Hopefully, Mercari’s response to this case will spark a broader societal discussion about the appropriate disclosure methods for court judgments.