Japan court rules in favor of Sri Lankans over rights to fair trial

The court acknowledged the plaintiffs' claim that the Tokyo Regional Immigration Services Bureau violated their right to face trial ensured under the Constitution.

Immigration Service Bureau is under Ministry of Justice, they should uphold justice is their job. If they really uphold justice that trial won't be needed.

Another example of real omotenashi

I keep repeating myself "kangaroo justice that only belongs in banana republics, but here we are in glorious Japan" How internationally embarrassing!!!

Glad to see that the justice system is alive and working, well done sir.

The Immigration Services Agency of Japan said in a comment that it will study the ruling and take appropriate action.

If the immigration service sticks to it previous pattern they will make a slight change to the rules, to circumvent this ruling.

When to supreme Court ruled in favour of the non Japanese custodial parents of Japanese national children to remain in Japan after divorce saying immigration had to grant them a Visa or PR.

Immigration's response was to quietly change the rules giving them only 90 days to obtain a new visa or they would be in violation and over stay, they made that rule retroactive meaning those that divorced prior to the rule and where told originally to apply when their spouse visa was to expire were not informed.

By doing this immigration then changed them with overstaying in an effort to circumvent the supreme Court ruling.

I know because I was one of those caught up in that little game.

So keep an eye out for some underhanded rule change saying something like they have 24 hours to file a court challenge, etc...

I keep repeating myself "kangaroo justice that only belongs in banana republics

It does. Hence, you see what you see.

PaulToday  08:24 am JST

I keep repeating myself "kangaroo justice that only belongs in banana republics, but here we are in glorious Japan" How internationally embarrassing!!!

Nothing "embarassing" for the Court to have found in favor of the immigrant plaintiffs as this article describes. I applaud this ruling.

Nothing "embarassing" for the Court to have found in favor of the immigrant plaintiffs as this article describes. I applaud this ruling.

So a once in a million court ruling doing the right thing and we are supposed to "applaud" them.

As the old saying goes, "Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while".

...And it only took 10 years! lol. Congratulations?

Become a real refugee, with internationally accepted criteria and requirements. Escape to Japan, the local Asian powerhouse country with incidentally THE WORST record of helping refugees out of all the OECD countries...and by a ridiculously wide margin.

What's next? Japan throws you in jail, smashes your livelihood, throws you out of the country prior to completing the legal process...yes, experience all this and 10 years later you, too, can get a half-hearted "sorry" and less than 3000 USD for your troubles? Oh, and by the way, Japan "may not have" violated its Constitution in treating you this way?!

llol. What's not to like? Talk about "Omotenashi!"

"Yokoso, Japan" indeed.

If there is one thing we have learnt about the immigration authorities in recent months it's that it's not fit for purpose.

The court ordered the state to pay 300,000 yen each to the men, overturning a lower court ruling that rejected the plaintiffs' claim for the damages.

In 10 years. 300,000 yen. That's 30,000 yen a year. For the whole court case. That's just a joke and just to keep the word out.

In a similar lawsuit filed by a man from South Asia who was on the same flight, the Nagoya High Court in central Japan in January ordered the state to pay 440,000 yen to the man, while saying the treatment did not violate the Constitution, according to the team of lawyers for the plaintiffs.

In three decades, I have noticed one thing here - when it comes to foreigners and any trial, if it goes in favor of the foreigners, the verdict of the court is always along those lines. "the state must pay them damages, however XYZ was not violated".

However, can anyone explain to me how the constitution could not have been violated in this case? I understand that a law may have been violated, but what does the constitution say? It doesn't define it?

And if the court also confirms that a state agency did not proceed correctly, then the state agency in question always goes to the court's decision by the back door - quietly modifies some procedure, its own regulation or something else, so as to bypass the court and not lose it's face.

Nothing to see here, move along…move along.

yes, i believe it wouldn't have happened this way without the death of a Sri Lankan immigrant recently.

This is not the constitutional issue. The system empowers those (who even know they are not defined as so-called refugees) rejected twice or more to go through legal process at courts. As far as such a system exist the court cannot misconstrue how things should be processed. We do need to change the system against these free riders.

However, can anyone explain to me how the constitution could not have been violated in this case? 

Well it is simple the Constitution n Japan under past court rulings does not apply to non citizens.

It is that simple.

Best example was the supreme court ruling on the right of the non Japanese custodial parent to remain in Japan after divorce.

The court repeatedly ruled the non Japanese's right were covered by the Japanese Constitution.

The court did not rule the non Japanese custodial parent had the right to stay, to ruled that by removing the care giver of the Japanese child the Japanese child's rights were being violated.

So basically the non Japanese custodial parent gets to stay by default because the child is Japanese and has the right not have their non Japanese parent care for them.

So again the courts have said again and again the constitution does not apply to non Japanese.

I think that the only reason why the court has made this ruling is because the so called judges are aware of the adverse international attention Japans legal system is getting. As one commenter has already stated, the immigration service at the lower levels will just be sneaky and change the rules.

It grieves me when I see Japanese companies access foreign markets without much ado.

Rules are applied fairly in first world countries.

Unfortunately,Japan is not one of those….

Did you read the article before making a comment?

Quote:"The Tokyo High Court on Wednesday ruled in favor of two Sri Lankans".

You must have read the opposite or your half blind.

The right move was done by the Tokyo Court. I agree with this decision.

Lecturing Japan as always when our record is better then yours.

Foreigners looking for a better life also died in your country, many more then in Japan. Let's look at the overall numbers if you want the truth.

The Japanese immigration system has been a disgrace for 30 years or more. But Japans Ministry of (so called) justice is a disgrace. Although Japanese judges at High Court level are of higher calibre than the imbecile judges at lower courts, they are still scared of challenging the bureaucrats who control Japan ie. Their own (so-called) justice Mimistry.