Australian rape victim loses case against police for bungling investigation

Thursday 11th December, 05:55 AM JST

TOKYO —

The Tokyo High Court on Wednesday rejected an appeal by an Australian woman who accused the Japanese police of “second rape” by mistreating her case in 2002. But she said she was resolved to take the case to the Supreme Court, continuing her fight for 11 million yen in compensation.

“I am very disappointed with the ruling,” said the Australian, who uses the pseudonym Jane. “This is a matter that concerns not just me but also everyone in Japan.” Asked if she would appeal again, she said, “100%. I’m going up to the next step.”

The plaintiff was raped in 2002 by a then sailor of the USS Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier in the naval port city of Yokosuka.

After prosecutors dropped the case without pressing a criminal charge against the sailor, she filed a civil case with the Tokyo District Court and won the right to seek compensation of 3 million yen from her attacker.

Before the district court made a ruling in that case, the sailor left the country without informing his lawyer. The compensation was instead paid by the Japanese government earlier this year.

The victim also sued the local government of Kanagawa Prefecture, arguing its police had failed to fulfill their duties, such as preserving the rapist’s sperm left in her body or taking her blood and urine samples.

She said in court that police officers had forced her to take them to the crime scene before she could wash and had not allowed her to go to hospital immediately.

The police demanded she pose for pictures to show how she had been raped, before releasing her 10 hours later, she said.

“I had to force myself not to use the toilet for four hours after the incident while being questioned by the police,” Jane told reporters.

“It’s a common sense in Australia that a rape victim should not use the toilet until the evidence is sampled,” she said.

Judge Toshifumi Minami said in the ruling: “Though it would have been preferable if police officers had paid more consideration to the victim, the lack of consideration was not to the extent of violating the law.”

Jane’s lawyer, Mami Nakano, criticized the ruling. “If this kind of idea is tolerated in society, it would hinder rape victims from reporting their cases to police,” she said.

Wire reports

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 37 Total Comments Show All

Patto at 01:08 PM JST - 11th December

Thank you to neverknow2! I laughed so hard I nearly wet myself. I am really glad Jane is pursuing this, and I am shocked to see how little progress has been made with regard to the Japanese police's attitude toward sex crimes. Years back the police suggested I had encouraged a persistent anonymous telephoner to get interested in me. He called so regularly they could have caught him at it easily, but they weren't interested in helping me. Ditto for the exhibitionist on a beach in Shizuoka Pref. I had witnesses and a way to identify the man and his friends, but all the police could say was, "Kuyashii desho." I see signs all over suburban Japan warning about sexual predators. I guess that's all anyone is doing about the problem.
whynothow at 01:39 PM JST - 11th December

Japanese social skills and sympathy/empathy at work.... One word is enough....INEPT before we know it they will be "tackling" the problem...whatever it means to them...It will only make mattersz worse.
belachan at 01:48 PM JST - 11th December

According to the Economist, this case highlighted the secret agreement between Japan and Eisenhower in 1953 to not prosecute US military men who commited offences. Although jurisdiction was "returned" to Japan in 1960, in practice the Japanese authorities do not exercise it.

http://www.japantoday.com/category/crime/view/australian-rape-victim-loses-court-case-againt-police-for-bungling-investigation

"But the reason why cases like Jane’s are not prosecuted may have less to do with incompetent police and more because of a secret agreement between America and Japan in 1953 that has recently come to light.

In September 2008, Shoji Niihara, a researcher on Japanese-American relations, uncovered previously classified documents in the U.S. National Archives. They show that in 1953, soon after Dwight Eisenhower assumed the presidency, John Foster Dulles, his secretary of state, embarked on a massive programme to get countries to waive their jurisdiction in cases of crimes by American servicemen.

On October 28th 1953, a Japanese official, Minoru Tsuda, made a formal declaration to the United States (not intended for public disclosure), stating, “The Japanese authorities do not normally intend to exercise the primary right of jurisdiction over members of the United States Armed Forces, the civilian component, or their dependents subject to the military law of the United States, other than in cases considered to be of material importance to Japan.”
whynothow at 01:50 PM JST - 11th December

Also....Policemen in Japan? cmon, dont make me laugh... a bunch of under-achieving boy scouts... And this is also valid for most professions. Why one might ask? Because their sole goal and purpose in life is to pass the entrance test, get in the trade....being qualified doesnt even cross their minds. Colleges and Universities managed like internet based fake diplomas factories....what a bright future they have.... And being proud of THAT is beyond my understanding... Jane should take matters into her own hands....she would be better at it.
BlackFlag at 02:04 PM JST - 11th December

I don't get it!!

apparently not
belachan at 02:16 PM JST - 11th December

Sorry, wrong link above.

It should be: http://www.economist.com/daily/columns/asiaview/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12756824&fsrc=nwl
Yelnats at 03:51 PM JST - 11th December

She is lucky she did not go to the police by bicycle. She would have spent another 2 or 3 hours being grilled about who's bike it really is!
ptolemy at 04:04 PM JST - 11th December

Keep up your fight Jane. You've got a lot of guts, and you are a hero to not only myself but my wife and daughter. Its time the Keystones reform from a standard of 19th century law enforcement and come into the 21st century with the basics of forensic science practice. I wish you luck.
sageb1 at 04:58 PM JST - 11th December

Jane can have no justice due to American foreign policy regarding its servicemen.

She is a victim of the US military industrial complex.
USARonin at 05:05 PM JST - 11th December

sageb1, goodness, I haven't heard that cliche - US military industrial coomplex - since Nixon was a corporal.

The story says the sailor wasn't charged yet says the woman "was raped" by the sailor.

sageb1, that's the trouble with unattributed faux news stories like this. They can put out the most nonsensical, fantastical musings, yet large numbers of folks such as yourself tend to accept it as non-fiction.

The more anti-US, the better, neh?
TooFarGone at 08:44 PM JST - 11th December

"She is a victim of the US military industrial complex."

I think only someone who believes that about himself could post something so ridiculous.
ca1ic0cat at 09:36 PM JST - 11th December

I would say that the military protected it's own. Using a phrase like "military industrial complex" make the whole thing seem like a joke.

It would seem clear that there was nothing consensual about the incident but the guy was allowed to run without any consequences. I expect the Navy would say that without charges being brought by the Japanese authorities they had no reason to act. The excuses offered by the Japanese prosecutors show gross negligence. Inept is, perhaps, too kind.
ca1ic0cat at 10:47 PM JST - 11th December

bela is right, everybody should read the "Economist" article on this. Here is the link again:

http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12756824

There is a lot more specific information there that you aren't going to get in JT. Perhaps JT should link to this?
Reicheru at 10:47 AM JST - 12th December

Although it is regrettable, I think this case would have seen the same outcome in any other western country (America, Britain, etc.). The principle is sovereign immunity or "the King can do no wrong." Judges and prosecutors have absolute immunity under state law in the US for example except for civil rights actions under federal law (§1983). Police are largely immune too. This is one circumstance where Japan is actually following the example set by western countries as unfortunate as it sounds. Hopefully her case will promote public awareness and encourage change, but she can't force change with this kind of civil action.
Crucades at 05:37 PM JST - 15th December

US Navy are always messing things up, people have only themselves to blame for getting involved with them.