Unrepentant and Brazen—Judge Loses Patience with 85-Year-Old Defendant in Child Indecency Trial

The verdict hearing for the 85-year-old man charged with non-consensual indecent acts was held on August 19

“It is utterly regrettable.”

On the street, an 85-year-old man suddenly kissed a young girl he had never met before. Throughout the trial, he repeatedly used this phrase.

On August 19, at the Tokyo District Court, Judge Kazuko Mukai handed down a sentence of one year and six months in prison, suspended for four years, to the man charged with non-consensual indecent acts.

“On May 7, 2025, the Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department’s Oku Station arrested an 85-year-old unemployed man on suspicion of non-consensual indecent acts against an 8-year-old girl, referred to as A. The man admitted to the allegations, saying, ‘I thought she was cute and called out to her. I couldn’t control my desires.’” (National newspaper social affairs reporter)

According to the indictment, in early April, the man was riding his bicycle along a road he often used for walks and shopping. He spotted A, who was on her way home from school, and suddenly kissed her.

The defendant (hereafter the accused) seemed to find it extremely regrettable to be charged with such a crime, just as he said at the outset. At the second hearing on August 12, he maintained the attitude of “I don’t want to admit what I did.”

During the trial, the prosecutor read a statement summarizing testimony from A’s mother. It described her shock upon noticing her daughter’s strange behavior and learning what had happened.

“When A came home, she usually greeted me cheerfully, but this time she was silent, so I felt something was wrong and went to check on her. She was crying as she washed her hands, her hair was messy, and her face was dirty—clearly not her usual self. I was shocked and asked what had happened.”

A then told her mother:

“Don’t tell anyone, okay? A strange old man kissed me. I don’t want this anymore. I can’t go to school.”

In her statement, A’s mother expressed her feelings toward the defendant:

“As a mother, I cannot forgive the man who did such a terrible thing to my daughter. I ask for strict punishment.”

Although the defendant’s relatives prepared ¥1,000,000 in settlement money, A’s mother refused to accept any settlement.

During the defendant’s questioning that day, a hearing aid was prepared because he had trouble hearing. Both the prosecutor and the defense attorney used head microphones when questioning him.

Stubbornly Denies Having Kissed

When the defense attorney asked for confirmation— “You kissed the child, correct?”—the defendant seemed determined not to admit that he had kissed A.

“It was for 0-point-something seconds; I wouldn’t even call it a kiss.”

The defense continued questioning, saying, “Let’s go step by step,” but the defendant’s obstinate responses left the attorney frustrated.

Defense: What did you say to the child?
Defendant: I didn’t say anything at all.
Defense: So you kissed without saying anything?
Defendant: She smiled, so it was just for 0-point-something seconds, barely touching.
Defense: Where did you touch?
Defendant: Nowhere.

Despite repeated questioning about whether he had kissed, the defendant repeatedly minimized the act: “It was for almost 0-point-something seconds, so I don’t think it counts as a kiss.”

Finally, when the defense phrased a question without using the word kiss, asking, “Can you promise never to do something like this again?” the defendant reluctantly answered:

“Promise or no promise, it is utterly regrettable. I swear to heaven and earth I will never do such a foolish thing again.”

The prosecutor then questioned him: “You say it wasn’t a kiss, but why did you think of kissing her?” The defendant repeated vague justifications:

“For some reason, she smiled at me, so it was only 0-point-something seconds.”

“I had absolutely no intention of kissing her.”

When the prosecutor, losing patience, raised their voice: “Do you not consider how the victim girl must have felt?” the defendant responded in a defiant manner:

“I don’t think I did anything wrong. I have no intention of thinking about her feelings.”

Throughout, the defendant kept repeating, “It is utterly regrettable.”

When asked what he meant by utterly regrettable, he replied:

“It contradicts what I am thinking.”

The prosecutor pressed further: “What is contradictory?”

“I don’t know,” the defendant said, ending the line of questioning.

The judge scolded him in a stern tone

The defense attorney stepped in again, unable to tolerate the situation. “Can you promise that you will never do something like this again?” they asked, pressing the defendant. The defendant, however, completely dug in, replying, “I have never done such a thing,” and never retracted his claim that he had not kissed the girl.

Faced with the defendant repeating the same claims in response to Judge Mukai’s questions, the judge finally began a stern lecture:

“You must never put your lips on a stranger! And you must never touch someone in a way you think might make them uncomfortable!”

Intimidated by the judge’s authority, the defendant could only manage, “Understood. I swear to God and heaven, I will never do such a foolish thing again.”

During closing arguments, the prosecution requested a prison sentence of 1 year and 6 months, citing the defendant’s lack of moral awareness and high risk of reoffending. The defense asked for a suspended sentence, arguing that the defendant regretted his actions and that his family would help with his rehabilitation. The court ultimately sentenced him to 1 year and 6 months in prison, suspended for 4 years.

Judge Mukai criticized the defendant, stating, “The defendant has not confronted his actions, and bears a heavy responsibility.” At the same time, the judge noted mitigating circumstances: no prior criminal record and the availability of family and friends to support rehabilitation.

During the trial, the prosecution revealed a letter from the defendant’s family expressing fear that he might believe his actions were not criminal. The defendant had described an act with an 8-year-old girl—an act capable of impacting her future—as such a foolish thing, showing little comprehension of the mental suffering inflicted on the girl and her family. One can only hope he does not repeat the same mistakes.