Editing Double jeopardy (section)

=== Japan ===
{{Expand section|date=June 2008}}

The [[Constitution of Japan]], which came into effect on 3 May 1947, states in Article 39 that

{{blockquote|No person shall be held criminally liable for an act which was lawful at the time it was committed, or of which he has been acquitted, nor shall he be placed in double jeopardy.}}

However, in 1950, one defendant was found guilty in the [[Judicial system of Japan#Courts|District Court]] for crimes related to the election law and was sentenced to paying a fine. The prosecutor wanted a stronger sentence and appealed to the High Court. As a result, the defendant was sentenced to three months of imprisonment. He appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the sentence was excessive when compared with precedents and that he had been placed in double jeopardy, which was in violation of Article 39. On 27 September 1950, all fifteen judges of the Supreme Court made the Grand Bench Decision to rule against the defendant and declared that a criminal proceeding in the District Court, High Court and Supreme Court is all one case and that there is no double jeopardy. In other words, if the prosecutor appeals against a judgement of not guilty or a guilty decision that they think does not impose a severe enough sentence, the defendant will not be placed in double jeopardy.

On 10 October 2003, the Supreme Court made a landmark decision in the area of double jeopardy. The case involved Article 235 of the Penal Code, which addresses "simple larceny", and Article 2 of the Law for Prevention and Disposition of Robbery, Theft, etc., which addresses "habitual larceny". The Court ruled that in the event that there are two trials for separate cases of simple larceny, it will not be considered double jeopardy, even if the prosecutor could have charged both of them as a single crime of habitual larceny. The defendant in this case had committed crimes of trespassing and simple larceny on 22 occasions. The defence counsel argued that the crimes were actually one offence of habitual larceny and that charging them as separate counts was double jeopardy. The Supreme Court ruled that it was within the prosecutor's discretion as to whether to charge the defendant with one count of habitual larceny or to charge them with multiple counts of trespassing and simple larceny. In either case, it is not considered double jeopardy.<ref>[http://blog.livedoor.jp/plltakano/archives/54254570.html 刑事裁判を考える：高野隆@ブログ:二重の危険]. Blog.livedoor.jp (14 May 2007). Retrieved on 2 January 2012.</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2012/12/06/double-jeopardy-and-the-japanese-law/ |title=Double Jeopardy and the Japanese Law |last=Sasakura |first=Kana |date=6 December 2012 |website=The Wrongful Convictions Blog |access-date=29 January 2022}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://iwate-u.repo.nii.ac.jp/index.php?action=pages_view_main&active_action=repository_action_common_download&item_id=13262&item_no=1&attribute_id=36&file_no=1&page_id=13&block_id=21 |title=The Law of Double Jeopardy in Contemporary Japan |last=Cleary |first=William |publisher=Artes liberales: Bulletin of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Iwate University |date=June 2005 |website=Iwate University Repository |access-date=29 January 2022}}</ref>