Photo/Illutration Plaintiffs and their lawyers head to the Sapporo District Court in Sapporo on March 25. (Kengo Hiyoshi)

SAPPORO--The Sapporo District Court ordered the Hokkaido government to pay 880,000 yen ($7,230) to two residents who were removed by police officers while heckling then Prime Minister Shinzo Abe at a 2019 election rally here.

“(The authorities) illegally infringed on the plaintiffs’ freedom of expression,” the court said in its ruling on March 25.

A 34-year-old male employee at an organization and a 26-year-old female labor organization worker had separately filed a lawsuit by February 2020, seeking compensation from the Hokkaido government for violating their freedom of expression guaranteed under the Constitution.

The incidents occurred on July 15, 2019, while Abe stumped in Sapporo on behalf of a candidate from the ruling Liberal Democratic Party running in the Upper House election.

According to the lawsuits, the man was mobbed by several officers from Hokkaido police and forcibly hauled to the back of a crowd after he yelled, “Abe should resign and go home,” during Abe’s speech in front of JR Sapporo Station. 

Nearby, the woman, who was a university student at the time, was pulled back more than 20 meters after she shouted, “I’m against the (consumption) tax hike.”

The man again heckled Abe at another rally venue in front of the Sapporo Mitsukoshi department store and was forcibly moved back about 50 meters from where he was standing.

The plaintiffs said they were illegally deprived of a rare opportunity to directly criticize the country’s leader for the government’s policies.

Whether the officers’ response was permissible under the Police Duties Execution Law was disputed in court.

Hokkaido police argued that the hecklers were removed from the crowds to avert a dangerous situation and prevent crimes in accordance with the law.

Police also said they removed the plaintiffs out of fear that they could be harmed by LDP supporters. In addition, the two were restrained since they were in an agitated state and could pose a danger to Abe and his supporters, they said. 

The plaintiffs claimed that police went too far in responding to their jeers because what they called a dangerous situation did not exist. They said there were no possibilities that they were in harm’s way or posed a threat to others in attendance.

The plaintiffs also argued that the officers removed them without giving a prior warning or presenting any legal justification for doing so.

The court ruled that the jeers did not arouse the crowds to such an extent as to yelling as police claimed, saying it would have been sufficient for the officers just to intervene even if there was a “dangerous situation.”

The ruling called freedom of expression a basic human right that plays a vital role in constitutional democracy and a key right that forms the foundation of a democratic society. 

Freedom of expression, which concerns public and political matters, should be particularly respected because it is a vital constitutional right, the ruling said.

The court concluded that all the jeers by the plaintiffs were a public and political expression.

Related News