NAGANO--A man charged with killing a student seven years ago will soon spend time behind bars, but only after the boy’s parents relentlessly pushed and prodded prosecutors for years to pursue it as a hit-and-run crime. 

The Nagano District Court found Tadamasa Ikeda, 50, guilty on Nov. 29 and sentenced him to six months in prison.

In March 2015, the car Ikeda was driving hit and killed 15-year-old junior high student Mikio Wada on a street in Saku, Nagano Prefecture.

At first, Ikeda was only indicted on negligent driving resulting in death and he was not tried on suspicion of drunken driving or of a hit-and-run.

Ikeda was found guilty and given a three-year prison sentence, suspended for five years.

Mikio’s parents were furious over the suspended sentence and launched a petition calling on prosecutors to appeal, which gained 40,000 signatures.

But no appeal was made.

After the suspended sentence was finalized, the parents started their own investigation into the case with the help of supporters.

In May 2017, the parents submitted a criminal complaint with prosecutors alleging Ikeda was driving beyond the speed limit and failed to fulfill his obligation to provide care for their injured son.

Prosecutors indicted Ikeda for speeding in 2018, but the district court threw out the case the following year on the grounds that prosecutors did not follow proper court procedures.

The third indictment against Ikeda came in January. He was charged with hit-and-run because he failed to notify police about the accident, even though the car he was driving threw Mikio 44.6 meters from the crosswalk.

After his parents submitted the criminal complaint in 2017, prosecutors looked into whether a hit-and-run incident occurred, but concluded there was insufficient evidence for an indictment.

A prosecution inquest panel found the decision to not indict was inappropriate, leading prosecutors to open another investigation--but the same conclusion was reached again.

The parents persisted and continued to submit statements to the Nagano District Public Prosecutors Office and prosecutors at higher levels, and finally got a third indictment.

After the Nov. 29 ruling, Mikio’s parents met with reporters.

“The ruling took our feelings into consideration,” said Mikio’s mother, Mari.

The father, Yoshimitsu, said, “I hope the defendant seriously takes this ruling to heart and atones for his crime.”

But one expert said indicting Ikeda three times has placed an undue burden on him.

“While prosecutors likely took into consideration the emotions of the bereaved family, the result was that the defendant was forced to endure three court cases and that is a problem,” said Takaaki Matsumiya, a criminal law professor at Ritsumeikan University in Kyoto. “A more thorough investigation about the hit-and-run should have been conducted from the very beginning.”

This latest ruling focused on two aspects: whether the actions taken by Ikeda immediately after the accident constituted a hit-and-run offense, and whether he should be immune from prosecution because of double jeopardy, as argued by his lawyers.

According to the ruling, Ikeda stopped his car about 95 meters from where he struck Mikio. He returned to the scene of the collision, but could not find Mikio and headed to a convenience store about 50 meters away to buy a breath freshener to cover up the smell of the alcohol that he had consumed.

When he returned to the accident scene two to three minutes later, Ikeda found Mikio and tried mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, but was unsuccessful.

Presiding Judge Hiroshi Ono rejected the defense lawyers' double jeopardy argument on the grounds that the latest charge was a different crime from those from the first two indictments. Ono also pointed out that the 2015 sentence did not consider a hit-and-run to be a factor when deciding on the severity of the sentence.

The judge also stated that the Road Traffic Law requires drivers involved in accidents to “immediately” provide care and report the matter to the police.

The ruling pointed out that even after Ikeda was asked by a bystander if he had called for an ambulance, he failed to notify police and left the scene of the accident--despite not completing his obligation to provide adequate care. Those actions led to the conclusion that a hit-and-run had taken place.