2003(wa)No 2805 The case of compensatory damages

Plaintiff : Tetsuro Tanaka

Defendant : Tokyo Metro police

Preliminary Pleading No1 From The Defendant,Tokyo Metropolis 2003.4.6

For The Tokyo District Court Hachiouji Branch Civil Department

Lawyer of the defendant : Tateo Tsuchiya

No1, Response of The reason for the request.

About 1

(1) The defendant declares ignorance about all of "1".

(2) About2

The defendant agrees that The defendant has the responsibility of compensatory damages for the victim from officers of the Metropolitan Police Department and The Metropolitan Public Safety Commission according to the National Compensation Law .

2 About 2

(1) The defendant generally admits about (1)

However the reason why the officers of the Mita Police Precinct of the Tokyo Metropolitan Police attended OKI Electric Company's general stockholder's meeting was not only by the request of OKI Electric Company.

a The defendant admits (2) that plaintiff made a speech during the meeting and showed a medical certificate to the security guards.

The defendant disaffirm that the security guards violently restrained the plaintiff , and the plaintiff asked the police officers to stop the violence but the police officers ignored the violence.

The defendant declares ignorance about the other things.

b About(3) (include the addendum 3)

The defendant agrees that the plaintiff proposed that the stockholder's meeting on be held on common stockholder's meeting day" and asked to take vote and said the management of the meeting was unfair, the chairman ordered the security guards to remove the plaintiff, the plaintiff showed the medical certificate to the security guards but was forced out of the room by the security guards .

The defendant disaffirms that the plaintiff was treated violently by the security guards , the plaintiff asked that the police officers to stop violence and the officers ignored the violence .

.

c The defendant declares ignorance of the other fact in (3).

d The defendant generally admits about (4) and (5).

e about (6)

The defendant admits that Shinyama had a call from the plaintiff on August 13 th 2002,

The defendant disaffirms that the plaintiff asked Shinyama to answer when the plaintiff called Shinyama and Shinyama tried to be intentionally vague giving the plaintiff ambiguous responses.

The defendant disaffirms the claim.

f The defendant generally admits (7) but Shinyama didn't persist with his own answer.

g The defendant admits that the plaintiff asked the Metropolitan Public Safety Commission to do an investigation according to The Police Law 78-2, "Complaint Statement Against Police Officer's Act."
The defendant declares ignorance of the other facts in (8)

h The defendant generally admits (9) but disaffirms that Shinyama's answer was unreasonable and was not an "explanation of the reason".
The officer of The Metropolitan Public Safety Commission told the plaintiff the they would not reinvestigate when the plaintiff asked The officer for a reinvestigation.

i The defendant generally admits (10)

j The defendant disaffirms (12) and (11)

About 2 2

The defendant declares ignorance about the damages of the plaintiff.

The defendant disaffirms the plaintiff's claim.

3 About 3

The defendant disaffirms about 3.

No2 The claim of the plaintiff.

1 The progress of facts.

(1) The situation and actions of the officers of the Mita Police Precinct during the OKI's general stockholder's meeting.

a The Mita Police Precinct was asked by OKI to send officers to observe the OKI's general stockholder's meeting.

b The chief of the Mita Police Precinct decided to send officers and vigil OKI's general stockholder's meeting.
Lieutenant Magota and 2 other officers went to OKI's general stockholder's meeting, which was held at Tokyo Minato Ku 4 chome 10-3, and observed in plane clothes on June 27 th 2002.

Many listed companies within the jurisdiction of the Mita Police Precinct held general stockholder's meetings on that day and the Mita Police Precinct sent that officers to observe those meetings.

Therefore, some of the officers had to go to several companies.

c OKI's general stockholder's meeting was scheduled to begin at 10 am but just before the beginning the plaintiff and his "sympathizer" spouted one-sidedly such things as " there is a problem of discrimination in OKI".
So the meeting couldn't start on time.

The chairman of the meeting declared the opening of the meeting 5 minutes after the scheduled time.

The chairman explained that he was prohibiting any speeches which were not related to the "subjects" which were written in the " notice to convene" [here after called "unrelated subjects"]and he would order a stockholder to leave if the stockholder broke his prohibition.

Then the plaintiff and the sympathizers began to make a speech without permission and heckled the chairman.

So the chairman cautioned them to stop prohibited speech.

d The agenda of the meeting progressed point by point including the, report of the inspection, report of inscription of new stocks, and response of the question from stockholder's letters.

Then the chairman explained before the oral questioning that he was prohibiting stockholders from asking question or making speeches about discrimination or unrelated to the subjects and he would order a stockholder to leave if the stockholder brake. And he also divulged the presence of police officers.

Then the oral questioning began and generally progressed peacefully.

So Lieutenant Magota and Lieutenant Takeda stayed at the meeting and the other two officers left OKI to move to another company's stockholder's meeting.

e The plaintiff's turn to question came at nearly noon but the plaintiff repeatedly asked about unrelated subjects and the chairman urged him to only make speeches on related subjects.
Such interchange were repeated several times and finally the plaintiff asked his question and asked the chairman to take a vote

The chairman judged there was no need to take a vote and denied the plaintiff's request.

However the plaintiff obstinately continued to ask for vote and continued to speak even though another stockholder had begun speaking.

So the chairman cautioned the plaintiff to stop the unrelated speech and warned that if he didn't to stop he would be ordered to leave however the plaintiff continued speaking without having the floor so the chairman ordered to the plaintiff to exit.

The plaintiff didn't exit and protested even though chairman ordered him to leave, So several security guards tried to persuaded the plaintiff to exit. Then the plaintiff took out a medical certificate slowly and showed it to the security guards and complained in a loud voice.

The security guards urged the plaintiff to exit by placing their hands on the plaintiff's arms or putting their hands on the plaintiff's back.

At first the plaintiff moved his upper body around prevent the guards from touching by stood firmly on his feet to stay in place.
However soon the plaintiff began to walk by himself appearing to follow the wishes of the security guards.

Then the security guards led the plaintiff to the doorway and took him outside.

Lieutenant Magota and Lieutenant Takeda had watched the whole incident of the plaintiff being removed by the security guards .

The action of removing the plaintiff by the security guards was legal and there were no illegal act against criminal laws involving the plaintiff and the security guards.

So Lieutenant Magota and Lieutenant Takeda were watched the situation calmly.

While the plaintiff was removed sympathizers complained as if supporting the plaintiff.

f After the plaintiff was removed the meeting progressed peacefully for a while but one of sympathizers spoke without having the floor and removed.

Then the agenda was decided and all proceedings finished after 1 Pm. Lieutenant Magota and Lieutenant Takeda withdrew from the meeting and returned to their jobs.

(2) The situation of Lieutenant Shinyama meeting the plaintiff.

a Lieutenant Shinyama got a call from the plaintiff on August 13th that the plaintiff would to come the Mita Police Precinct with demands.

Lieutenant Shinyama told the plaintiff to come to the Mita Police Precinct on August 16th.

b The plaintiff came to the Mita police precinct with 2 other men on August 16 th 10 :30am.

Lieutenant Shinyama lead only the plaintiff to the counseling room that was on the 2nd floor of the precinct and met him .

The plaintiff took out a paper named "list of demands" and read it and asked "did you send officers to the stockholder's meeting" , or , "did you send officers for OKI, or didn't the officers recognize the violence of the OKI's security guards "or "will you send the officers to OKI's meeting next year？".

.Lieutenant Shinyama explained that, the aim of sending officers is to prevent crime and arrest trouble makers.
Officers watched the meeting , they decided there was no crime in the meeting, and said they will also send officers to OKI's stockholder's meeting next year.

The plaintiff asked to accept the "list of demands".

However Lieutenant Shinyama said to the plaintiff that they wouldn't give any written acknowledgement of the list because it was written the plaintiff's opinion was one-sided including the questions and requested answers.

Then the plaintiff held out the paper and said I would like the police to just accept it and asked if there were police officers of the meeting.

Lieutenant Shinyama said to the plaintiff he would investigate and report to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff returned with the other two men.

c Lieutenant Shinyama asked two other officers out of Lieutenant Magota Lieutenant Takeda the situation at the meeting .

The two officers answered that they didn't see the situation when the plaintiff was removed because they had left halfway through the meeting .

So Lieutenant Shinyama felt that the four officers moved to another company's stockholder's meeting because nothing special had happened and Lieutenant Shinyama didn't confirm with Lieutenant Magota or Lieutenant Takeda.

The plaintiff called Lieutenant Shinyama on August 27 th and asked were there police officers in the meeting when the plaintiff was removed.

Lieutenant Shinyama answered the plaintiff that there were no police officers in the meeting when the plaintiff was removed because all of them had already left the meeting because they had to go another company's stock holder's meeting

(3) The complaint of the plaintiff to The Metropolitan Public Safety Commission

a The Metropolitan Public Safety Commission received the complaint of the plaintiff that according to the Police Law 78-2 that the paper was dated September 26 th 2002 but released October 4th 2002.

The Metropolitan Public Safety Commission ordered the chief of the Mita Police Precinct to investigate the act.

b As the result of the investigation the chief of the Mita Police Precinct reported to The Metropolitan Public Safety Commission that , Lieutenant Magota and Lieutenant Takeda had watched the stockholders meeting from beginning to end, the action of removing the plaintiff by the security guards was legal and there were no illegal act against criminal laws involving the plaintiff and the security guards, Lieutenant Shinyama had a call from the plaintiff on August 27 the and responded.

c The Metropolitan Public Safety Commission mailed "the notification of result of treatment for the Complaint Statement" of investigation by the chief of the Mita Police Precinct to the plaintiff which said that " The police officers didn't make special response because there were no illegal acts while the company's security guards removed the plaintiff from stockholder's meeting".

The plaintiff called the Public Safety Department on March 11th 2002 and asked for reinvestigation of the notification of the result of treatment for the Complaint Statement.

Lieutenant Ryoiti Oda, a member of Public Safety Department, responded to the plaintiff that the Public Safety Commission will not reinvestigate cases already responded to .

Then the plaintiff answered " I understand you won't reinvestigate but I will send you a request for reinvestigation" and finished the call.

The next day, March 12th, The Metropolitan Public Safety Commission received a request for reinvestigation from the plaintiff.

(4) The response of the chief of the Mita Police Precinct to the plaintiff after that.

(a) The plaintiff mailed to the chief of the Mita Police Precinct a registered copy of a "Complaint Statement" on June 11th 2003 dated June 10th 2003 that asked the reason why they did not send officers to the stockholders meeting this year or why Lieutenant Shinyama did incorrectly explained about the acts of police officers who joined the stockholders meeting.

(b) The chief of the Mita Police Precinct responded to the plaintiff by mail that the police wouldn't accept the plaintiff's demand not to send police officers to the stockholder's meeting or the reason Lieutenant Shinyama did not explain correctly to the plaintiff.

2 counter argument against the plaintiff's claim.

(1) There are no facts that the Mita police officers violated their responsibility on duty.

The plaintiff claims the Mita police officers violated their duty to prevent crimes according to The Police Execution Law 5 by the officers ignore the situation when they witnessed the plaintiff being removed by violence by the security guards.(The petition 2,2,(1) )

However Lieutenant Magota and Lieutenant Takeda didn't respond as polices officer because there was no violation of criminal law involving the plaintiff and security guards while the chairman legally ordered the plaintiff who had violated the smooth progress of the meeting by repeated the speaking without having the floor to exit , the security guards persisted removing the plaintiff , the plaintiff took out a medical certificate and showed it to the guards and shouted and the plaintiff didn't obey the security guards instructions, therefore the security guards urged the plaintiff to exit putting their hands on the plaintiff's back and arms and first the plaintiff refused, but later obeyed the instructions and walked himself so the security guards lead the plaintiff to the door and the police officers confirmed the plaintiff had left the room.

There are no facts showing police officers broke any laws.
So there is no reason for the plaintiff's complaint.

(2) There in no fact that the Lt Shinyama derided the plaintiff.

The plaintiff clams that Lt Shinyama told a serious lie that Mita police officers weren't there in the meeting place, though Mita Police officers were present from the beginning to end at the meeting place and witnessed security guards violating the plaintiff's rights and The chief of the Mita Police Precinct tried to deceive the plaintiff using the phrase "hasty conclusion.

It is a fact that Lieutenant Shinyama told the plaintiff misleading things without grasping all the acts of police officer's who observed the stockholder's meeting.
However it is a fact he didn't tell a lie or deride the plaintiff and he didn't have the slightest intention of doing those.

In fact, as a result, Lieutenant Shinyama told to the plaintiff things different from the truth, but he didn't have any malice trying to intentionally neglect investigation or conceal facts or deride the plaintiff.

Therefore there is no evidence that Lieutenant Shinyama derided the plaintiff so the plaintiff's claim is irrelevant.

(3)There is no evidence that The Metropolitan Public Safety Commission was derelict of duty.

The plaintiff claims that The Metropolitan Public Safety Commission has a responsibility to supervise all police officers so that they adequately do their duty, therefore The Metropolitan Public Safety Commission was derelict of duty when the Mita police officers allowed an illegal police act against the plaintiff,(The petition 2,2,(4) )

However there is no evidence that the Mita police officers allowed an illegal act against the plaintiff as mentioned so the plaintiff's claim is irrelevant as a premise.

By the way, District Public Safety Commission' has a responsibility to supervise district police affairs as the district organization of police. (Police Law 38-3)

This "supervise" means one of the main principles of police affairs but dose not mean supervise details of individual execution of police officers and direct police to conform the principles when the police affair did not conform to the principles which created by the district Public Safety Commission.

Therefore even if there were illegal acts by individual police officer's , The Metropolitan Public Safety Commission's appropriateness of it is not undutiful for individual nationals and, is not against the Nation Compensation Law.

Therefore all of the plaintiff's claims are irrelevant.

N0 4 The conclusion

The claim of the plaintiff should be reject because there were no illegal acts by The Mita police officers and The Metropolitan Public Safety Commission .

準　備　書　面(被告）1

Defendant Preliminary Pleading 1

平成15年（ワ）第2805号　損害賠償等請求事件

２００３（ワ）No 2805 The case of compensatory damages

原　告　田　中　哲　朗

Plaintiff : Tetsuro Tanaka

被　告　東　　京　　都

Defendant : Tokyo Metro police

準　備　書　面　（1）

Preliminary Pleading No1 From The Defendant,Tokyo Metropolis

平成16年4月　8　日
東京地方裁判所八王子支部民事第4部1係　御中

For The Tokyo District Court Hachiouji Branch Civil Department

被告指定代理人　　　土　　田　　立　夫

Lawyer of the defendant : Tateo Tsuchiya

第一　請求の原因に対する答弁
No1, Response of The reason for the request.

　1　�Tについて
About�T

（1）1項（別紙1及び同2を含む。）について　　　　いずれも不知。

（1）The defendant declares ignorance about all of "1".

　（2）2項について

(2)About2

　　　一般論として、被告は、東京都公安委員会（以下「公安委員会」という。）や警視庁の職員が、公権力の行使に当たり、違法に他人に損害　を与えた場合には賠償責任を負う立場にあることは認める。

The defendant agrees that The defendant has the responsibility of compensatory damages for the victim from officers of the Metropolitan Police Department and The Metropolitan Public Safety Commission according to the National Compensation Law .

2　�Uについて
2　 About �U

（1）1項について　　ア　�@は、概ね認める。
（1）The defendant generally admits about �@.

ただし、平成14年6月27日に開催された沖電気工業株式会社（以下「沖電気」という。）の株主総会（以下「本件株主総会という。）に警視庁三田警察署（以下「三田署という。）の警察官（以下三田署員」という。）が臨場警戒したのは、沖電気から警備要請があったとの一事によるものではない。

However the reason why the officers of the Mita Police Precinct of the Tokyo Metropolitan Police attended OKI Electric Company's general stockholder's meeting was not only by the request of OKI Electric Company.

イ　�Aのうち、原告が、本件株主総会において、発言をしたこと、持参していた診断書を警備員に示したことは認める。

The defendant admits �Athat plaintiff made a speech during the meeting and showed a medical certificate to the security guards.

原告が、警備員から暴行を受けたとの点、三田署員が、原告が警備員による原告に対するを制止するよう求めたが、警備員による暴行を供手傍観し、沖電気の違法行為を看過したとの点は否認する。

The defendant disaffirm that the security guards violently restrained the plaintiff , and the plaintiff asked the police officers to stop the violence but the police officers ignored the violence.

　　その余の事実は不知。

The defendant declares ignorance about the other things.

ウ　�B（別紙3を含む。）ついて
About �B(include the addendum 3)

　原告が、本件株主総会において、株主総会の集中日に沖電気の株主総会を開催しないように提案し、議長に採決を求めたこと、沖電気の篠塚社長、本件株主総会の議長を務めたこと、本件株主総会に警察官を招請していると説明したこと（ただし、議長がそのことを説明したのは、株主総会の冒頭ではない。）、原書の提案に対して説明したが、採決をとらなかった　こと、原告が、議事運営が不当である旨の意見を述べたこと、議長である篠塚社長が、原告に退場を命じたこと、原告が、持参していた診断書を警備員に示したこと、警備員によって本件株主総会の会場から退場させられたことは認める。

The defendant agrees that the plaintiff proposed that the stockholder's meeting on be held on common stockholder's meeting day" and asked to take vote and said the management of the meeting was unfair, the chairman ordered the security guards to remove the plaintiff, the plaintiff showed the medical certificate to the security guards but was forced out of the room by the security guards .

　原告が、警備員から暴行を受けたとの点、三田署員が、原告が警備員による原告に対する暴行を制止するよう求めたが、警備員による暴行を供手傍観し、沖電気の違法行為を看過したとの点は否認する。

The defendant disaffirms that the plaintiff was treated violently by the security guards , the plaintiff asked that the police officers to stop violence and the officers ignored the violence .

.

　その余の事実は不知
The defendant declares ignorance of the other fact in �B.

　主張は争う。

エ　�C及び�Dは、概ね認める。

エ　The defendant generally admits about �Cand�D.

オ　�Eのうち

オ　about �E

　三田署刑事生活安全組織犯罪対策課新山卓美警部補（以下「新山警部補」という。〕が、平成14年8月13日、原告からの電話を受けたこと、同月16日に警察官がいたかどうかについて調査して同答する旨を述べたことは認める。

The defendant admits that Shinyama had a call from the plaintiff on August 13 th 2002,

　原告が、新山警部補に対して電話した際、回答を求めたとの点、新山警部補が、原告と面会した際、曖昧な対応でごまかそうとしたとの点は否認する。

The defendant disaffirms that the plaintiff asked Shinyama to answer when the plaintiff called Shinyama and Shinyama tried to be intentionally vague giving the plaintiff ambiguous responses.

主張は争う。

The defendant disaffirms the claim.

カ　�Fは、概ね認める。ただし、新山警部補が、自らの回答に固執した事実はない。

カ　The defendant generally admits �F but Shinyama didn't persist with his own answer.

キ　�Gのうち、　原告が、2002年9月26日付けの「苦情申し出書」によって、警察法78粂の2に基づく苦情の申出を公安委貞会にしたことは認める。
　　　　　その余は不知。

キ　The defendant admits that the plaintiff asked the Metropolitan Public Safety Commission to do an investigation according to The Police Law 78-2, "Complaint Statement Against Police Officer's Act."
The defendant declares ignorance of the other facts in �G.

　　ク　�Hは、概ね認める。ただし、非合埋なもので、「理由の説明」などというものでは到底なかったという主張については争う。また、公安委員会室の職員は、原告が再同答を要求したのに対し、再調査を行わない旨を電話で告げている。

　ク　The defendant generally admits �H but disaffirms that Shinyama's answer was unreasonable and was not an "explanation of the reason".
The officer of The Metropolitan Public Safety Commission told the plaintiff the they would not reinvestigate when the plaintiff asked The officer for a reinvestigation.

　　ケ　�Iは、概ね認める。
ケ　The defendant generally admits �I

　　コ　�Kないし�Jは、いずれも否認ないし争う。

コ　The defendant disaffirms �Kand�J

（2）2項について

About �V2

　　　原告の損害は不知。

The defendant declares ignorance about the damages of the plaintiff.
　
　　主張は争う。

The defendant disaffirms the plaintiff's claim.

3　�Vについて
3 About �V

　　　争う。
The defendant disaffirms about �V.

第2　被告の主張
No2 The claim of the plaintiff.

1事実の経緯
1 The progress of facts.

（1）本件株主総会における三田署員の活動状況等

The situation and actions of the officers of the Mita Police Precinct during the OKI's general stockholder's meeting.

　　ア　三田署は、沖電気から、平成14年6月27日に開催される本件株主総会に警察官を派遣して警戒して欲しい旨の要請を受けた。

　ア　The Mita Police Precinct was asked by OKI to send officers to observe the OKI's general stockholder's meeting.

　　イ　三田署長は、沖電気の本件株主総会に警察官を派遣して警戒することとし、孫田輝海警部（以下「孫田警部」という。）ら4名が、平成14年6月27日、東京都港区芝浦四丁目10版3号に所在する沖電気本社5号館別館の本件株主総会の会場へ赴き、私服で警戒活動に当たった。

　イ　The chief of the Mita Police Precinct decided to send officers and vigil OKI's general stockholder's meeting.
Lieutenant Magota and 2 other officers went to OKI's general stockholder's meeting, which was held at Tokyo Minato Ku 4 chome 10-3, and observed in plane clothes on June 27 th 2002.

　　　　三田署では、当日、管内において多数の上場企業が株主総会を開催し、多くの株主総会に警察官を派遣して臨場警戒に当たらせたことから、幾つかの株主総会を掛け持ちして警戒に当たる警察官もいた。

Many listed companies within the jurisdiction of the Mita Police Precinct held general stockholder's meetings on that day and the Mita Police Precinct sent that officers to observe those meetings.

Therefore, some of the officers had to go to several companies.

　　ウ　本件株主総会は、同日午前10時から開会される予定であったが、開会直前、原告と原告に同調する者似下「同調者という。）が、議長に対して、沖電気に差別問題があるなどと一方的に捲し立てたことから、定刻に開会されなかった。

ウ　OKI's general stockholder's meeting was scheduled to begin at 10 am but just before the beginning the plaintiff and his "sympathizer" spouted one-sidedly such things as " there is a problem of discrimination in OKI".
So the meeting couldn't start on time.

（事実は松野さんが、「昨年のように発言している株主を暴力で排除しないことを約束しろ」と求めた。警察の言い分は、全く沖電気と同じになっている）

　結局、閉会予定時刻よりも5分ほど遅れて、議長が、本件株主総会の開会を宣言した後、株主に対し、株主総会の招集通知に記載された目的事項に沿った議事進行とするため、目的事項に沿わない発言を禁止すること、　禁止行為をした場合は統長の権限で退場を命ずることなどを説明した。すると、原告と同調者が、勝手に発言をしたり、野次を飛ばすなどし始めた
　ので、議長は、原告らに対し、不規則発言を止めるように注意した。

The chairman of the meeting declared the opening of the meeting 5 minutes after the scheduled time.

The chairman explained that he was prohibiting any speeches which were not related to the "subjects" which were written in the " notice to convene" [here after called "unrelated subjects"]and he would order a stockholder to leave if the stockholder broke his prohibition.

Then the plaintiff and the sympathizers began to make a speech without permission and heckled the chairman.

So the chairman cautioned them to stop prohibited speech.

エ　本件株主総会は、監査報告、新株発行数等に関する報告、書面質問に対する応答の順に記事が進行し、株主による口頭質問へ移る際、試長が、各　株主に対して、質問は目的事項沿ったものに限ること、目的事項以外の　差別問題等についで質問することを禁止すること、禁止行為を行った場合は議長の権限で退場を命ずることなどを説明し、会場内こ警察官が臨していることも明らかにした。

エ　The agenda of the meeting progressed point by point including the, report of the inspection, report of inscription of new stocks, and response of the question from stockholder's letters.

Then the chairman explained before the oral questioning that he was prohibiting stockholders from asking question or making speeches about discrimination or unrelated to the subjects and he would order a stockholder to leave if the stockholder brake. And he also divulged the presence of police officers.

　その後、株主と沖電気経営者側との間で口頭による質疑応答が開始され、議事は概ね平穏に連行した。このため、孫田警部及び武田芳範警部繍（以下「武田警部補」という。）の2名が、本件株主総会の会場付こ残って警戒活動に当たることにし、他の2名の警察官は、他社の会場へ転進するために、本件株主総会の会場を離れた。

Then the oral questioning began and generally progressed peacefully.

So Lieutenant Magota and Lieutenant Takeda stayed at the meeting and the other two officers left OKI to move to another company's stockholder's meeting.

オ　同日正午ころ、原告は、口頭質問の順番が回ってきたが、目的事項に沿わない発言を繰り返し、議長が、目的事項に沿った発言をするよう原告に促した。原告と議長の間でこのような状況が何度も繰り返され、数分間続いたりその後、原告は、ようやく質問事項を述べ、議長に対し、裁決を取るように要求したが、議長が、採決の必要はないと判断し、これを拒否したため、執拗に採決を要求して、次の株主が質問を始めても、同人の質問を遮って発音を続けた。

オ　The plaintiff's turn to question came at nearly noon but the plaintiff repeatedly asked about unrelated subjects and the chairman urged him to only make speeches on related subjects.
Such interchange were repeated several times and finally the plaintiff asked his question and asked the chairman to take a vote

The chairman judged there was no need to take a vote and denied the plaintiff's request.

However the plaintiff obstinately continued to ask for vote and continued to speak even though another stockholder had begun speaking.

　このため、議長は、原告に対し、発言を止めるように注意して、止めなければ退場を命ずると警告したが、原告が、議長の警告を無視して、不規則発言を続けたことから、原告に退場を命じた。

So the chairman cautioned the plaintiff to stop the unrelated speech and warned that if he didn't to stop he would be ordered to leave however the plaintiff continued speaking without having the floor so the chairman ordered to the plaintiff to exit.

　原告は、議長から退場を命ぜられても、抗議するなどして退場しなかったことから、あらかじめ議長の指揮を受けていた数名の警備員が、原告に歩み寄り、原告に退腸するように説得すると、原告は、おもむろに診断書を取り付して、警備員に示すなどしながら大声で騒ぎ立てた。

The plaintiff didn't exit and protested even though chairman ordered him to leave, So several security guards tried to persuaded the plaintiff to exit. Then the plaintiff took out a medical certificate slowly and showed it to the security guards and complained in a loud voice.

響傭員は、原告が説得に応じる気配を見せなかったことから、原告の腕に手を添えたり、原告の背中に手を当てるなどして原告に退場するよう促した。

The security guards urged the plaintiff to exit by placing their hands on the plaintiff's arms or putting their hands on the plaintiff's back.

これに対して、原告は、当初、腕に触れさせないよう上体を振ったり、その場から動かないように踏ん張る姿勢をとったが、そのうち、警備員に促されるようにその場から歩み始めた。

At first the plaintiff moved his upper body around prevent the guards from touching by stood firmly on his feet to stay in place.
However soon the plaintiff began to walk by himself appearing to follow the wishes of the security guards.

そこで、警備員は、原告の両腕や背中に手を添えて原告を出入口の扉方向まで誘導して、会場外へ退場させた。

Then the security guards led the plaintiff to the doorway and took him outside.

　会場内で警戒していた孫田警部及び武田警部補は、原告が警備員に退場させられる状況の一部始終を現認していたが、警備員による原告の退場措置は適法なものであるし、原告と警備員との間で相互に刑罰法規に触れる違法な行為はなかったことから、原告が警備員に退場させられるのを静観していた。
Lieutenant Magota and Lieutenant Takeda had watched the whole incident of the plaintiff being removed by the security guards .

The action of removing the plaintiff by the security guards was legal and there were no illegal act against criminal laws involving the plaintiff and the security guards.

So Lieutenant Magota and Lieutenant Takeda were watched the situation calmly.

　一方、同調者は、原告が退場させられる際、原告に応援するような発言をするなどして、騒いだ。
　While the plaintiff was removed sympathizers complained as if supporting the plaintiff.

カ　本件株主総会は、原告が退場措置となった後、一旦は平穏に進行したものの、同調者の一人が、議長に対し、不規則発言を繰り返したことから、議長から退場措置を受けた。

After the plaintiff was removed the meeting progressed peacefully for a while but one of sympathizers spoke without having the floor and removed.

　その後、議案の議決等が行われ、同日午後1時過ぎに全ての議事を終了して、本件株主総会は閉会し、会場内にいた孫田警部及び武田警部補は、警戒を終えて引き上げた。

Then the agenda was decided and all proceedings finished after 1 Pm. Lieutenant Magota and Lieutenant Takeda withdrew from the meeting and returned to their jobs.

（2）新山警部補が原告と応対した状況

(2) The situation of Lieutenant Shinyama meeting the plaintiff.

　ァ　新山警部補は、同年8月13日、原告から、本件株主総会に関して三田署に申入れをしたい旨の電話があったので、同月16日午前10時30分に三田署を訪れるよう原告に伝えた。

ァ　Lieutenant Shinyama got a call from the plaintiff on August 13th that the plaintiff would to come the Mita Police Precinct with demands.

Lieutenant Shinyama told the plaintiff to come to the Mita Police Precinct on August 16th.

　ィ　新山警部補は、8月16日午前10時35分ころ、原告が、2名の男性を伴って三田署を訪れたので、原告だけを同署２階の刑事課相談室に案内して、応対したところ、原告が、「申し入れ書」と題する文書を取り出して読み上げ、本件株主総会に警察官を派遣したのかとか、沖電気のために警察官を派遣したのかとか、警察官は警備員の暴行を認識していなかったのかとか、来年の株主総会にも警察官を派遣するのかなどと質問したので、株主総会における警察官の臨場警備は、犯罪の予防、検挙等を目的とするものであること、本件株主総会の会場こおいて警察官が臨場警戒をしたこと、本件株主総会において違法行為があったとは認識していないこと、沖電気の株主総会には来年も警察官が臨場警戒をする見込みであることを述べた。

　ィ　The plaintiff came to the Mita police precinct with 2 other men on August 16 th 10 :30am.

Lieutenant Shinyama lead only the plaintiff to the counseling room that was on the 2nd floor of the precinct and met him .

The plaintiff took out a paper named "list of demands" and read it and asked "did you send officers to the stockholder's meeting" , or , "did you send officers for OKI, or didn't the officers recognize the violence of the OKI's security guards "or "will you send the officers to OKI's meeting next year？".

.Lieutenant Shinyama explained that, the aim of sending officers is to prevent crime and arrest trouble makers.
Officers watched the meeting , they decided there was no crime in the meeting, and said they will also send officers to OKI's stockholder's meeting next year..

　　また、新山警部補は、原舎が、「申し入れ書」と題する文書を提出したいと申し出たが、「申し入れ書の内容が一方的に原告の言い分を述べたものであり、それを前提にして質問をし、回答を求める内容であったことから、同文書に対して書面で回答はできないし、受け取ることもできないことを告げた。

The plaintiff asked to accept the "list of demands".

However Lieutenant Shinyama said to the plaintiff that they wouldn't give any written acknowledgement of the list because it was written the plaintiff's opinion was one-sided including the questions and requested answers.

すると、原告は、提出するだけでいい。」と言いながら、「申し入れ書を新山警部補の前に差し出し、「本当に会場内に警察官がいたのか。」などと念を押すように質問してきたので、新山警部補が、調査して回答する旨を原告に告げると、2名の男性と連れ立って帰っていった。

Then the plaintiff held out the paper and said I would like the police to just accept it and asked if there were police officers of the meeting.

Lieutenant Shinyama said to the plaintiff he would investigate and report to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff returned with the other two men.

　ウ　新山警部補は、本件株主総会の警戒状況等につき、本件株主総会に臨場警戒した孫田警部及び武田警部補以外の2名の警察官に尋ねたところ、両名とも、株主総会の途中で会場から出たので、原告が警備員に退場させられた状況は見ていないと答えたことから、本件株主総会では特異な状況は発生しておらず、4名の警察官とも他社の株主総会の警戒に転進したものと思い込み、孫田警部及び武田警部補には確認しないでいたところ、原告が、8月27日、新山警部補に電話を架けてきて、原告が退場させられた際、本件株主総会の会場に警察官がいたか否かを質問してきたので、本件株主総会の当日、三田署管内では多数の企業が株主総会を開催しており、三田署では、多数の株主総会の会場に警察官を派遣して臨場警戒に当たらせており、複数の株主総会の会場を掛持ちで臨場警戒に当たっていた警察官もいたことから、前述した2名の警察官が述べた内容からして、本件株主総会に臨揚した警察官は、他の株主総会の会場と掛持ちで臨場警戒に当たっており、原告が退場させられた時には他の株主総会の会場に全員が転進したため、本件株主総会の会場にはいなかったものと思い込み、この旨を原告に答えた。

Lieutenant Shinyama asked two other officers out of Lieutenant Magota Lieutenant Takeda the situation at the meeting .

The two officers answered that they didn't see the situation when the plaintiff was removed because they had left halfway through the meeting .

So Lieutenant Shinyama felt that the four officers moved to another company's stockholder's meeting because nothing special had happened and Lieutenant Shinyama didn't confirm with Lieutenant Magota or Lieutenant Takeda.

The plaintiff called Lieutenant Shinyama on August 27 th and asked were there police officers in the meeting when the plaintiff was removed.

Lieutenant Shinyama answered the plaintiff that there were no police officers in the meeting when the plaintiff was removed because all of them had already left the meeting because they had to go another company's stock holder's meeting

（3）公安委員会に対する原告の申出等

(3) The complaint of the plaintiff to The Metropolitan Public Safety Commission

　ア　公安黍員会は、平成14年10月4日、原告からの2002年9月26日付けの文書による警察法78条の2の規定こ基づく苦情の申出を受理し、三田署長に事実調査を求めた。

The Metropolitan Public Safety Commission received the complaint of the plaintiff that according to the Police Law 78-2 that the paper was dated September 26 th 2002 but released October 4th 2002.

The Metropolitan Public Safety Commission ordered the chief of the Mita Police Precinct to investigate the act.

　イ　三田署長は、調査の結果、孫田警部と武田警部補が、本件株主総会の開会時から閉会時まで会場内で臨場警戒に当たっていたこと、原告が本件株主総会の会場から退場させられた際、警備員が原告に対して違法な行為を行った事実はなく、原告が警備員に対して違法な事実を行った事実もなかったこと、新山警部補が、同年8月27日に原告からの電話を受理し、応対したことなどが判明したので、この旨を公安委員会に報告した。

イ　 As the result of the investigation the chief of the Mita Police Precinct reported to The Metropolitan Public Safety Commission that , Lieutenant Magota and Lieutenant Takeda had watched the stockholders meeting from beginning to end, the action of removing the plaintiff by the security guards was legal and there were no illegal act against criminal laws involving the plaintiff and the security guards, Lieutenant Shinyama had a call from the plaintiff on August 27 the and responded.

　ウ　公安委員会は、平成15年1月14日、三田署長の調査等の結果に基づき、「田中様が申し出られた、自主警備員による株主総会からの退場措置には、刑罰法令に触れる違法な行為が認められなかったことから、臨場警戒中の警察官は、特別な措置を取らなかったものです。」などとした苦情処埋結果通知書（以下「本件苦情処理結果通知書」という。）を原告に郵送した。

ウ　The Metropolitan Public Safety Commission mailed "the notification of result of treatment for the Complaint Statement" of investigation by the chief of the Mita Police Precinct to the plaintiff which said that " The police officers didn't make special response because there were no illegal acts while the company's security guards removed the plaintiff from stockholder's meeting".

　　　公安委員会室の小田良一警部補は、同年3月11日、原告が、公安委員会室に電話を掛けて、本件苦情処理結果通知書に関して公安委員会に再調査を求めたので、既に回答した事案については再度の調査はしない旨を述べた。すると．、原告は、「再調査をしないことは分かったが、再回答を求める文書は送らせてもらう。」と述べて、電話を切った。
　　　翌12日、本件苦情処理結果通知書に関して、原告から公安委員会あてに再回答を求める文書が郵送された。

The plaintiff called the Public Safety Department on March 11th 2002 and asked for reinvestigation of the notification of the result of treatment for the Complaint Statement.

Lieutenant Ryoiti Oda, a member of Public Safety Department, responded to the plaintiff that the Public Safety Commission will not reinvestigate cases already responded to .

Then the plaintiff answered " I understand you won't reinvestigate but I will send you a request for reinvestigation" and finished the call.

The next day, March 12th, The Metropolitan Public Safety Commission received a request for reinvestigation from the plaintiff.

（4）その後の三田署長の原告との応対状況

(4) The response of the chief of the Mita Police Precinct to the plaintiff after that.

　ア　原告は、平成15年6月11日、三田署長あてに2003年6月10日付けの「申入書」と題する文書を内容証明郵便で郵送し、平成15年の沖電気の株主総会には警察官が臨場警戒をしないことを要望したり、新山警部補が本件株主総会に臨場警戒した警察官の活動状況について誤った内容を原告に説明した理由の回答を求めた。

ア　The plaintiff mailed to the chief of the Mita Police Precinct a registered copy of a "Complaint Statement" on June 11th 2003 dated June 10th 2003 that asked the reason why they did not send officers to the stockholders meeting this year or why Lieutenant Shinyama did incorrectly explained about the acts of police officers who joined the stockholders meeting.

　イ　三田署長は、同月20日、平成15年の沖電気の株主総会には警察官が臨場警戒をしないようにとの原告の要望には応じられないことや、新山警部補が原告に誤った説明した埋由について文書で回答した。

イ 　The chief of the Mita Police Precinct responded to the plaintiff by mail that the police wouldn't accept the plaintiff's demand not to send police officers to the stockholder's meeting or the reason Lieutenant Shinyama did not explain correctly to the plaintiff.

2　原告の主張に対する反論

2 counter argument against the plaintiff's claim.

（1）三田署員が職務義務に違反した事実はない

(1) There are no facts that the Mita police officers violated their responsibility on duty.

　　原告は三田署員が、本件株主総会の会場から警備員に暴力的に排除される原告を目撃しながら、これを供手傍観し、警察官職務執行法5条の犯罪制止義務に違反したなどと主張する（訴状�U、2、（1））。

The plaintiff claims the Mita police officers violated their duty to prevent crimes according to The Police Execution Law 5 by the officers ignore the situation when they witnessed the plaintiff being removed by violence by the security guards.(The petition �U、2、（1）)

　　しかしながら、孫田警部及び武田警部補は、本件株主総会において、不規則発言を繰り返すなどして議事の円滑な進行を妨害した原告に議長が退場を命じた行為は、商法237条の4第3項の規定に基づく適法なものであること、原告が、議長の退場命令に従わず、会場内の秩序を乱し、円滑な議事進行を妨げたこと、議長の指揮を受けた警備員は、原告に退場するように説得していたこと、原告は、診断書を取り出して、警備員に示しながら大声で騒ぎ、説得に応じる気配を見せなかったこと、このため、警備員が、原告の腕に手を添えたり、原告の背中に手を当てるなどして退場するように促したところ、当初、これに抵抗する姿勢を見せていた原告が、その後説得に応じて動き出したので、会場の出入口扉方向へ誘導して、会場外へ退場させたことを現認し、この間、原告と警備員との問には相互に暴行等の刑罰法令に触れる違法な行為はなかったことから、警察措置を執らなかったのである。

However Lieutenant Magota and Lieutenant Takeda didn't respond as polices officer because there was no violation of criminal law involving the plaintiff and security guards while the chairman legally ordered the plaintiff who had violated the smooth progress of the meeting by repeated the speaking without having the floor to exit , the security guards persisted removing the plaintiff , the plaintiff took out a medical certificate and showed it to the guards and shouted and the plaintiff didn't obey the security guards instructions, therefore the security guards urged the plaintiff to exit putting their hands on the plaintiff's back and arms and first the plaintiff refused, but later obeyed the instructions and walked himself so the security guards lead the plaintiff to the door and the police officers confirmed the plaintiff had left the room.

　　したがって、三田署員が本件株主総会において職務義務に違反した事実はなく、原件の主張は失当である。

There are no facts showing police officers broke any laws.
So there is no reason for the plaintiff's complaint.

（2）新山警部補が原告を愚弄などした事実はない

There in no fact that the Lt Shinyama derided the plaintiff.

　原告は、新山警部補が、三田署員が本件株主総会の終了時まで会場内に臨席し、警備員の原告に対する暴行事件を目撃したにもかかわらず、会場内にいなかったなどという極めて重大な嘘をつき、「早合点」などという言葉でこれをごまかそうとしたなどと主張する（訴状�U、2、（2））。

The plaintiff clams that Lt Shinyama told a serious lie that Mita police officers weren't there in the meeting place, though Mita Police officers were present from the beginning to end at the meeting place and witnessed security guards violating the plaintiff's rights and The chief of the Mita Police Precinct tried to deceive the plaintiff using the phrase "hasty conclusion.

　新山警部補が、平成14年8月27日に原告から電話を受けた際、本件株主総会において臨場警戒した警察官全員の活動状況を把握せずに誤解した内容を原告に述ペた事実はあるが、原告に対して嘘をついたとか、原告を愚弄したなどというものではないし、そのような意図さえ微塵もなかったのである。

It is a fact that Lieutenant Shinyama told the plaintiff misleading things without grasping all the acts of police officer's who observed the stockholder's meeting.
However it is a fact he didn't tell a lie or deride the plaintiff and he didn't have the slightest intention of doing those.

要するに新山警部補は結果的に事実と異なったことを述べてしまったのであるが、そのことについて、故意に調査を怠ったとか、事実を隠蔽しようとするなど、原告を愚弄するような悪意はなかったのであるから、同警部補の発言が、原告の権利を侵害したことにはならないし、不法行為を構成するものでもない。

In fact, as a result, Lieutenant Shinyama told to the plaintiff things different from the truth, but he didn't have any malice trying to intentionally neglect investigation or conceal facts or deride the plaintiff.

したがって、新山警部補が原告を愚弄などした事実はなく、原告の主張は失当である。

Therefore there is no evidence that Lieutenant Shinyama derided the plaintiff so the plaintiff's claim is irrelevant.

　（3）公安委員会に任務懈怠の事実はない

(3)There is no evidence that The Metropolitan Public Safety Commission was derelict of duty.

　　　原告は、公安委員会は、警視庁警察官が適法・適正に警察活動を行うよう、統括し監督すべき機関として職務上の責任を有しているにもかかわらず、三田署員が違法な警察活動を原告に対して行ったのであるから、公安委員会の監督義務の懈怠を構成するものであると主張する（訴状�U、2、（4））。

The plaintiff claims that The Metropolitan Public Safety Commission has a responsibility to supervise all police officers so that they adequately do their duty, therefore The Metropolitan Public Safety Commission was derelict of duty when the Mita police officers allowed an illegal police act against the plaintiff,(The petition �U、2、（4）

　　　　しかしながら、前述したとおり、三田署員が原告こ対して違法な行為を行った事実はないから、原告の主張は前提において失当である。

However there is no evidence that the Mita police officers allowed an illegal act against the plaintiff as mentioned so the plaintiff's claim is irrelevant as a premise.

　　　ところで、都道府県公安委員会は、都道府県の警察機関として、都道府県の区域における警察事務について、都道府県警察を管理する責任を負っているところ（警察法38条3項）、

By the way, District Public Safety Commission' has a responsibility to supervise district police affairs as the district organization of police. (Police Law 38-)

ここにいう「管理」とは、警察行政について、運営の大綱方針（事務の運営の準則その他事務を処理するに当たり準拠すべき基本的な方向又は方法）を定めることであって、個々の事務執行の細部についての指揮監督を行うものではなく、事務執行が都道府県公安委員会が示した大綱方針に適合していないと認められる場合に、大綱方針に適合させるように必要な指示を行うことであると解されでいる（警察庁長官官房編「警察法解説（新版）」210ページ）。したがって、個々の警察官の職務執行に違法な点が存在したとしても、公安委員会による管理の適否が個別の国民に対する義務違反となり、国家賠償法上違法とされることはないのである。

This "supervise" means one of the main principles of police affairs but dose not mean supervise details of individual execution of police officers and direct police to conform the principles when the police affair did not conform to the principles which created by the district Public Safety Commission.

Therefore even if there were illegal acts by individual police officer's , The Metropolitan Public Safety Commission's appropriateness of it is not undutiful for individual nationals and, is not against the Nation Compensation Law.

　　　よって、原告の主張はいずれにしても失当である。

Therefore all of the plaintiff's claims are irrelevant.

第4　結語

N04 The conclusion

　　以上のとおり、三田署員及び公安委員会の行為に違法な点はないから、原告の本訴請求は速やかに棄却されるべきである

The claim of the plaintiff should be reject because there were no illegal acts by The Mita police officers and The Metropolitan Public Safety Commission .