Workflow Sample: Draw a Court Process in BPMN (flow of Criminal Procedure)

In the previous article, I introduced Japanese "Civil Procedure" and a Process Diagram of it.

The following represents trial process of "Criminal Procedure" in Japan.

This Process Diagram will be helpful for understanding the outline of Criminal Procedure, its "Three-trial system" and the "positioning of the Summary Court". Also, it will help to aware of the "difference between Civil Procedure and Criminal Procedure" by comparing with trial process of Civil Procedure.

For instance, it has not generally been recognized that an appellate against the "first instance in Summary Court" moves to "High Court in a Criminal procedure, whereas it is brought in District Court in Civil Procedure. Or else, recognition by the Flow chart will promote understanding the difference which "submission of Indictment" by prosecutor will trigger a Criminal Procedure, whereas "Filing of Complaint" by plaintiff will do a Civil Procedure.

"Process Diagram" is indispensable in understanding the "rules" whatever it is the law statement or the company regulations.

<Reference>

[Criminal Procedure flow]

[Compare: Civil Suits flow]

However, you cannot be aware to "Detailed rules" from Process Diagram only.

For example, you cannot recognize the rules, such as in some cases that "accusation" by the victim is required for the prosecutor to submit an indictment (Antragsdelikt). Or the rule that "Forcibly indictment" will be exercised by a designated lawyer when the Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution determined "merits indictment" twice. (The incident of the tycoon politician accumulated wealth suspicion is still fresh in our minds)

In addition, there also are routes that arrow connections (sequence flow) are not described because these are rare cases.

That is, it is not described about the "route of appellate to the Supreme Court skipping the appeal to the second trial" after the first instance. In other words, although there is no objection to the judgment on the "fact-finding and sentencing" of the first instance, it will be "law trial" in the Supreme Court to find the case of doubt for the "interpretation of the law sentence" and "the very existence of the law" that was its premise. These cases are not described in the Process Diagram for maintaining its readability. Actually, there is no problem for the aspect of Workflow operation if considering the second trial as "skipped by the agreement of both". (Same as "Leap appeal" in Civil action)

By the way, for the discussion on "Security Bill" (Partial admittance to the right to collective self-defense) of today, public has been paying attention again to the "SUNAGAWA Incident" (of 1959), which was found "the US military presence can not be said to be unconstitutional" when "Leap Appealed" by the Prosecution, after the judgment by the Tokyo District Court was "Not guilty because the 'Act to Provide for the Special Criminal Act pertaining to the Enforcement of the Agreement under Article VI of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between Japan and the United States of America, regarding Facilities and Areas and the Status of United States Armed Forces in Japan' itself was unconstitutional".

Incidentally, the process diagram does not describe the rule that "High Court become the first instance" (Insurrection), because there is no case in the past.

[Criminal Procedure flow:"0y. Institution of Prosecution" screen]