2.3.1. Key / Expert Witness Dr. Judson (Addictive Medicine Specialist) Denied Testifying at both District and High Courts

At the district court hearing on March 27th, 2008 the appellant requested that Dr. Judson be given the opportunity to testify but this request was rejected on the grounds that it would be difficult to find a reliable interpreter and subsequently proceedings continued without an expert witness testimony taking place.

Further, the appellant made a second request at the High Court of Appeal for Dr. Judson to be given the opportunity to testify but this request was again rejected for no apparent reason.

However, as well as Dr. Judson being a specialist highly trained in addictive medicine, he is also the doctor who diagnosed the appellant as being benzodiazepine dependent to begin with. Subsequently, both the District Court and High Court’s methods of proceeding without a testimony and making such a one sided decision places the entire case at risk of becoming a travesty of justice.

2.3.2. Process Indicated by Initial High Court Judge Stopped Without Completing Evidence / Differential Diagnosis

The initial High Court Judge indicated the following before being transferred.

He questioned: “How is it possible for key witness, Dr Judson, to make an accurate assessment without seeing all of the patient files?”

Accordingly, in order to dispel any doubts, the process of translating each of the patient files and having reports based on their content, which should have been implemented at the District Court level, was indicated. This process was eventually commenced at the High Court, and because it was not done initially at the District Court, it ate considerably into the time of High Court proceedings. The current status of this process is as follows:

Status of Process Indicated by Initial High Court Judge

The content of Report 5 above distinguishes between the long term effects (protracted withdrawal, trauma of the addiction experience, and pressures of subsequent claim for compensation etc) following the completion of the formal reduction program, and differentiates between this and the possibility of symptoms being caused by mere stress/anxiety alone.

Further, it gives reasons for ruling out mere stress/anxiety as the sole cause; however, as the above process was stopped part- way through, we did not have the opportunity to submit it (Appendix 9).

NB: The initial High Court judge made it very clear that only arguments based on the evidence would be considered. Therefore, in accordance with this instruction, the entire contents of Dr. Judson’s reports (3~5) have all been based solely on the evidence, including the 9 patient files (see above) that are contained in the official body of evidence. Further, all of the related facts have been methodically and carefully explained in these reports and applied to the DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria.

2.3.3. Left-hand Associate Judge (Mainly Presided Over This Case) Demonstrated Unprofessional Conduct

This is reflected in the following hearing reports from the appellant’s then lawyer.

Below is a report extract from the first scheduled court hearing date held on December 1st, 2009 at 10:30am in the Court Secretary’s Office (F16) of Civil Section 9 at the Tokyo High Court.

“The judiciary will consist of 3 judges. On this occasion one of them (possibly the left-hand associate judge) came out and asked various questions. This judge had not studied the case at all, and he had not gone over any of the records”. “I have never come across a judge as unprepared as him ever before”.

Below is a report extract from the fourth court hearing (third lawyer’s debating session) held on March 25th, 2010 at 11:40am.

“Unlike the presiding judge, the left-hand associate judge does not show the ability to cut to the chase as far as directing proceedings is concerned, so there’s little wonder it’s going to drag out for a while. However, if Chief Justice Takaki ends up being transferred, we’ll have no choice in the matter. We’ll just have to wait and see how the replacement Chief Justice comes out which leaves me feeling a little anxious.”

“Chief Justice Takaki’s approach of trying to see through to the nerve centre of the case was very distinguished, not like the approach of the left-hand associate judge who comes across as if to say “You guys lost the first court case - what makes you think you going to win this time?” and other such meaningless cheap shots. Not all judges are like that.”

Judging from the above comments, it appears that the left-hand associate judge’s (who ended up managing most of the case) judgment was affected by his own personal opinion and preconceived notions. I question whether this kind of attitude from a judge can be regarded as fair or in the interests of society in general.

NB: I also feel it was detrimental to proceedings for the Chief Justice to be replaced part way through proceedings by another Chief Justice who knew absolutely nothing about the case.

2.3.4. (Conclusion)

For the reasons above the high court verdict was not produced in accordance with fair proceedings resulting in an infringement of constitution clause 32.