To access the complete case file, click here
Case No.
WO235/892
Accused
Niimori Genichiro
Court
Military Court for the Trial of War Criminals No. 7
Charge
First Charge: Committing a War Crime
“in that he on the high seas between the 27th September 1942 and the 2nd October 1942 when in the service of the Japanese Army as an interpreter with a draft of British Prisoners of War on board the S.S. “Lisbon Maru”, and responsible for the well-being of the said Prisoner of Wars, was, in violation of the laws and usages of war, concerned in their ill-treatment including the battening down of the Prisoners of War in the hold of the said ship after it has been torpedoed and was in a sinking condition, whereby many of them lost their lives and the remainder underwent physical and mental sufferings”
Second Charge: Committing a War Crime
“in that he at Shanghai on or about 4th October 1942 when in the service of the Japanese Army as an interpreter, was, in violation of the laws and usages of war, concerned in the neglect and the ill-treatment of British Prisoners of War in his custody causing physical sufferings to many of them and in particular RSM R.H. Challis.”
Third Charge: Committing a War Crime
“in that he on the high seas between 26th September 1943 and 6th January 1944 when in the service of the Japanese Army as an interpreter aboard the S.S. “Toyama Maru” (Alias “Tozan Maru”), was, in violation of the laws and usages of war, concerned in the ill-treatment of a Prisoner of War named Rifleman P. Doucett of the Canadian Army, contributing to the death of the said Rifleman Doucett”
Fourth Charge: Committing a War Crime
“in that he at Hong Kong on or about the 20th August 1942, when in the service of the Japanese Army as an interpreter, was, in violation of the laws and usages of war concerned in the ill-treatment of Prisoners of War causing physical suffering to Sgt. J.O. Payne, L.Cpl. G. Berzenski, Pte. J.H. Adams and Pte. P.J. Ellis all of the Winnipeg Grenadiers Canadian Army.”
Fifth Charge: Committing a War Crime
“in that he at Hong Kong during the month of November 1943 when in the service of the Japanese Army as an interpreter at Bowen Road Hospital, was, in violation of the laws and usages of war, concerned in the ill-treatment of Prisoners of War in the said hospital causing physical suffering to them and in particular to Cpl. J.T.F. Murry, Rifleman J.W. Archibald, Cpl. Pike and Cpl. Taylor.”
Sixth Charge: Committing a War Crime
“in that he at Hong Kong in the month of February 1945, when in the service of the Japanese Army as an interpreter at Happy Valley Race Course Camp was, in violation of the laws and usages of war, concerned in the ill treatment of Prisoners of War causing physical suffering and in particular to Pte. Nolan.”
Seventh Charge: Committing a War Crime
“in that he at Hong Kong between April 1942 and August 1945 when in the service of the Japanese Army as an interpreter on the Prisoner of War Camps Staff, was, in violation of the laws and usages of war, concerned in the stealing of the Red Cross parcels and personal effects the property of Prisoners of War of the Camps Group at Hong Kong aforesaid.”
“in that he on the high seas between the 27th September 1942 and the 2nd October 1942 when in the service of the Japanese Army as an interpreter with a draft of British Prisoners of War on board the S.S. “Lisbon Maru”, and responsible for the well-being of the said Prisoner of Wars, was, in violation of the laws and usages of war, concerned in their ill-treatment including the battening down of the Prisoners of War in the hold of the said ship after it has been torpedoed and was in a sinking condition, whereby many of them lost their lives and the remainder underwent physical and mental sufferings”
Second Charge: Committing a War Crime
“in that he at Shanghai on or about 4th October 1942 when in the service of the Japanese Army as an interpreter, was, in violation of the laws and usages of war, concerned in the neglect and the ill-treatment of British Prisoners of War in his custody causing physical sufferings to many of them and in particular RSM R.H. Challis.”
Third Charge: Committing a War Crime
“in that he on the high seas between 26th September 1943 and 6th January 1944 when in the service of the Japanese Army as an interpreter aboard the S.S. “Toyama Maru” (Alias “Tozan Maru”), was, in violation of the laws and usages of war, concerned in the ill-treatment of a Prisoner of War named Rifleman P. Doucett of the Canadian Army, contributing to the death of the said Rifleman Doucett”
Fourth Charge: Committing a War Crime
“in that he at Hong Kong on or about the 20th August 1942, when in the service of the Japanese Army as an interpreter, was, in violation of the laws and usages of war concerned in the ill-treatment of Prisoners of War causing physical suffering to Sgt. J.O. Payne, L.Cpl. G. Berzenski, Pte. J.H. Adams and Pte. P.J. Ellis all of the Winnipeg Grenadiers Canadian Army.”
Fifth Charge: Committing a War Crime
“in that he at Hong Kong during the month of November 1943 when in the service of the Japanese Army as an interpreter at Bowen Road Hospital, was, in violation of the laws and usages of war, concerned in the ill-treatment of Prisoners of War in the said hospital causing physical suffering to them and in particular to Cpl. J.T.F. Murry, Rifleman J.W. Archibald, Cpl. Pike and Cpl. Taylor.”
Sixth Charge: Committing a War Crime
“in that he at Hong Kong in the month of February 1945, when in the service of the Japanese Army as an interpreter at Happy Valley Race Course Camp was, in violation of the laws and usages of war, concerned in the ill treatment of Prisoners of War causing physical suffering and in particular to Pte. Nolan.”
Seventh Charge: Committing a War Crime
“in that he at Hong Kong between April 1942 and August 1945 when in the service of the Japanese Army as an interpreter on the Prisoner of War Camps Staff, was, in violation of the laws and usages of war, concerned in the stealing of the Red Cross parcels and personal effects the property of Prisoners of War of the Camps Group at Hong Kong aforesaid.”
Background
The Accused was a civilian attached to the Imperial Japanese Army att 44 Cdo(lt.). He was the Chief Interpreter to the Prisoner of War (‘POW’) Camp Staff in Hong Kong, and was the personal interpreter to Col. Tokunaga O.I.C., POW Camps. He was in demand because of his good command of English (he had apparently spent several years in the USA). His duties consisted of translating orders from the officer in charge of the POWs, and he travelled on transport ships (specifically the S.S. Lisbon Maru and S.S. Toyama Maru).
Allegations
On the First Charge
The Prosecution emphasized the notion of being “concerned in”. The Accused “took part or had a part” in the ill-treatment on the Lisbon Maru, which included battening down of the POWs, issuing orders to the POWs below, threatening them with shootings and also covering of the hatches.
On the question of responsibility of the Accused for the well being of the POWs, the Prosecution alleged that even if the Accused was not formally responsible for the well being of the POWs, he was still “concerned” in the said ill-treatment. In any case, the Prosecution argued that the Accused had “minor responsibility” over the POWs once he was on board the Lisbon Maru. He made certain statements purporting to have authority, or indicating that he had authority, over the POWs outside his ordinary interpreting tasks. On one occasion, he also asked NCO Fujima for extra food for the POWs.
On the question of his actual involvement, the Prosecution argued that on top of the identification evidence against the Accused, there was evidence that the Accused took part in the whole scheme of battening of the holds, chasing the POWs down, threatening them, actually shooting them and covering the hatches to the holds. He was alleged to have actually committed these acts.
The Prosecution sought to establish, through witnesses, that the Accused actually ordered the sentries to fire on the POWs. Certain guards of the POWs escort had allegedly told one witness, out of court, that the Accused ordered them to shoot at the defenseless POWs (i.e. hearsay evidence).
The Prosecution sought also to hold the Accused liable for a variety of other cruel acts, including pouring buckets of urine into the hold where the POWs were held.
On the Second Charge
The Prosecution relied on the very uniform testimonies given by several witnesses, which all pointed to the fact that the Accused abused the POWs by lining them up followed by beating and kicking them. This was done while he was actually in charge, based on the observation that he gave orders to the guards, lined up the POWs and then abused them.
On the Third Charge
This charge concerns the “Toyama Maru”. It was alleged that the victim Doucett was beaten and kicked. On the question of severity, it was argued that beating was severe enough to contribute to the death of the victim together with various diseases which he had contracted before his death.
The Prosecution also argued that even if the ill-treatment was done pursuant to the order, such action still fell under the notion of “taking part in” and therefore the Accused was liable.
On the Fourth Charge
The Prosecution, specifically relying on the testimony of an eyewitness that corroborated a victim’s affidavit, sought to hold the Accused responsible for actually beating the victims.
On the Fifth Charge
The Prosecution here relied heavily on the notion of being “concerned in” which they defined as “to take part or to have part in”. By using this notion, the Prosecution included in its submission acts including actual mistreatment, and also presence at the scene of mistreatment. The Prosecution also denied any collusion of evidence.
On the Sixth Charge
The Accused admitted that he had struck the victim under this charge. The Prosecution focused on the question of severity. It sought to argue that, on evidence, the Accused had seriously beaten the victim and not given just a few slaps. It argued that there was evidence to the effect that the victim was beaten 100 times/blows over a period of approximately 30 minutes to 1 hour (because he tried to escape).
On the Seventh Charge
On the issue of theft of parcels and Red Cross amenities, the Prosecution relied chiefly on witness affidavits and testimony. It alleged that although there had been one investigation leading to the conclusion that some Chinese stole the parcels, it could not have affected the conclusion that the Accused stole the parcels on other occasions and this was, therefore, irrelevant.
The Prosecution emphasized the notion of being “concerned in”. The Accused “took part or had a part” in the ill-treatment on the Lisbon Maru, which included battening down of the POWs, issuing orders to the POWs below, threatening them with shootings and also covering of the hatches.
On the question of responsibility of the Accused for the well being of the POWs, the Prosecution alleged that even if the Accused was not formally responsible for the well being of the POWs, he was still “concerned” in the said ill-treatment. In any case, the Prosecution argued that the Accused had “minor responsibility” over the POWs once he was on board the Lisbon Maru. He made certain statements purporting to have authority, or indicating that he had authority, over the POWs outside his ordinary interpreting tasks. On one occasion, he also asked NCO Fujima for extra food for the POWs.
On the question of his actual involvement, the Prosecution argued that on top of the identification evidence against the Accused, there was evidence that the Accused took part in the whole scheme of battening of the holds, chasing the POWs down, threatening them, actually shooting them and covering the hatches to the holds. He was alleged to have actually committed these acts.
The Prosecution sought to establish, through witnesses, that the Accused actually ordered the sentries to fire on the POWs. Certain guards of the POWs escort had allegedly told one witness, out of court, that the Accused ordered them to shoot at the defenseless POWs (i.e. hearsay evidence).
The Prosecution sought also to hold the Accused liable for a variety of other cruel acts, including pouring buckets of urine into the hold where the POWs were held.
On the Second Charge
The Prosecution relied on the very uniform testimonies given by several witnesses, which all pointed to the fact that the Accused abused the POWs by lining them up followed by beating and kicking them. This was done while he was actually in charge, based on the observation that he gave orders to the guards, lined up the POWs and then abused them.
On the Third Charge
This charge concerns the “Toyama Maru”. It was alleged that the victim Doucett was beaten and kicked. On the question of severity, it was argued that beating was severe enough to contribute to the death of the victim together with various diseases which he had contracted before his death.
The Prosecution also argued that even if the ill-treatment was done pursuant to the order, such action still fell under the notion of “taking part in” and therefore the Accused was liable.
On the Fourth Charge
The Prosecution, specifically relying on the testimony of an eyewitness that corroborated a victim’s affidavit, sought to hold the Accused responsible for actually beating the victims.
On the Fifth Charge
The Prosecution here relied heavily on the notion of being “concerned in” which they defined as “to take part or to have part in”. By using this notion, the Prosecution included in its submission acts including actual mistreatment, and also presence at the scene of mistreatment. The Prosecution also denied any collusion of evidence.
On the Sixth Charge
The Accused admitted that he had struck the victim under this charge. The Prosecution focused on the question of severity. It sought to argue that, on evidence, the Accused had seriously beaten the victim and not given just a few slaps. It argued that there was evidence to the effect that the victim was beaten 100 times/blows over a period of approximately 30 minutes to 1 hour (because he tried to escape).
On the Seventh Charge
On the issue of theft of parcels and Red Cross amenities, the Prosecution relied chiefly on witness affidavits and testimony. It alleged that although there had been one investigation leading to the conclusion that some Chinese stole the parcels, it could not have affected the conclusion that the Accused stole the parcels on other occasions and this was, therefore, irrelevant.
Defence
The Defense was founded on the “iron” rule in the Japanese army that a civilian officer can never give orders to a military personnel. The Defence argued primarily that: (1) the Accused was only an interpreter; (2) the Accused passed on orders from his superior; and (3) the Accused was apt to adopt a self-important attitude towards the POWs which made him over-estimate his power. The Defence also contended that only a few POWs had personal grudges against the Accused and only they filed testified.
On the First Charge
The Defence admitted that the conditions inside the Lisbon Maru were unsatisfactory. But, he argued that it was Tokyo Headquarters which decided the transport methods and the Accused had no say in this regard. In particular, he argued that Lt. Wada was the one who had authority over the transportation scheme and, in any case, the POWs there had enough opportunities to raise any issue concerning detention cond itions to Lt. Wada without the intervention of the Accused. After the Lisbon Maru was torpedoed, the order to close the hatches to prevent any uprising was given by Lt. Wada, and not by the Accused.
On the allegation that the Accused neglected the requests by the POWs, the Defence argued that this was not his responsibility. Nevertheless, he sometimes acted out of goodwill. There were other persons responsible for those matters. On individual events (such as humiliating acts and refusing permission to POWs to fetch meals and water), the Defence argued either that there was reliable evidence or that these were all attributable to Lt. Wada instead.
On the Second Charge
The Defence took issue with three allegations: (1) Starvation of POWs; (2) Beating of POWs; and (3) taking off the clothes of POWs.
On the first allegation, the Defence argued that he was only an interpreter and could not have, arbitrarily, and in disregard of Lt. Wada’s order to withhold foodstuff from the POWs, done otherwise.
On the second allegation, he argued that, on top of insufficient evidence, the reality was that he was also rescued from the sea after the sinking of the Lisbon Maru and so he could not have such strength to commit violence against the POWs.
On the last allegation, the Defence argued that the Accused followed Lt. Wada’s Order.
On the Third Charge
The Defence noted that the victims, who were to blame for violating Japanese Army Regulations, refused to confess. So, measures were taken to find out the exact violators. He argued that the degree of violence administered was exaggerated by deponents. The Defence argued that there were only slapping and mild punishment. In any event, it was all under the order of Sgt. M.J. Furusho, a guard member of the transportation unit. It was Japanese Army custom that a lower rank military office could give command to a nominal civilian superior. Lastly, the named victim’s death was attributed to acute colitis (disease) rather than human violence.
On the Fourth Charge
The Defence primarily challenged the credibility of witnesses and evidence.
On the Fifth Charge
The Defence primarily challenged the credibility of Prosecution witnesses (who were not cross-examined).
On the Sixth Charge
The Defence argued that although the victim was treated somewhat cruelly, the credibility of witnesses who testified on this charge, was doubtful. Furthermore, the Accused actually intended to punish the victim as lightly as possible without calling in the Kempeitai, who might actually have inflicted even more severe punishment.
On the Seventh Charge
On the accusation that the Accused planned and carried out a scheme of overworking the POWs in poor conditions, the Defence argued that he was only an interpreter, and had nothing to do with such planning. He had actually suggested giving up some unbearable working methods imposed by the Governor-General. On the question of health of the POWs, the Defence relied on the Japanese Army Doctor’s testimony and suggested that POWs were actually healthy at the relevant times.
Lastly, the Defence argued that the POWs did their work voluntarily and it was unnecessary for the Accused to inflict any violence on them at all.
On the First Charge
The Defence admitted that the conditions inside the Lisbon Maru were unsatisfactory. But, he argued that it was Tokyo Headquarters which decided the transport methods and the Accused had no say in this regard. In particular, he argued that Lt. Wada was the one who had authority over the transportation scheme and, in any case, the POWs there had enough opportunities to raise any issue concerning detention cond itions to Lt. Wada without the intervention of the Accused. After the Lisbon Maru was torpedoed, the order to close the hatches to prevent any uprising was given by Lt. Wada, and not by the Accused.
On the allegation that the Accused neglected the requests by the POWs, the Defence argued that this was not his responsibility. Nevertheless, he sometimes acted out of goodwill. There were other persons responsible for those matters. On individual events (such as humiliating acts and refusing permission to POWs to fetch meals and water), the Defence argued either that there was reliable evidence or that these were all attributable to Lt. Wada instead.
On the Second Charge
The Defence took issue with three allegations: (1) Starvation of POWs; (2) Beating of POWs; and (3) taking off the clothes of POWs.
On the first allegation, the Defence argued that he was only an interpreter and could not have, arbitrarily, and in disregard of Lt. Wada’s order to withhold foodstuff from the POWs, done otherwise.
On the second allegation, he argued that, on top of insufficient evidence, the reality was that he was also rescued from the sea after the sinking of the Lisbon Maru and so he could not have such strength to commit violence against the POWs.
On the last allegation, the Defence argued that the Accused followed Lt. Wada’s Order.
On the Third Charge
The Defence noted that the victims, who were to blame for violating Japanese Army Regulations, refused to confess. So, measures were taken to find out the exact violators. He argued that the degree of violence administered was exaggerated by deponents. The Defence argued that there were only slapping and mild punishment. In any event, it was all under the order of Sgt. M.J. Furusho, a guard member of the transportation unit. It was Japanese Army custom that a lower rank military office could give command to a nominal civilian superior. Lastly, the named victim’s death was attributed to acute colitis (disease) rather than human violence.
On the Fourth Charge
The Defence primarily challenged the credibility of witnesses and evidence.
On the Fifth Charge
The Defence primarily challenged the credibility of Prosecution witnesses (who were not cross-examined).
On the Sixth Charge
The Defence argued that although the victim was treated somewhat cruelly, the credibility of witnesses who testified on this charge, was doubtful. Furthermore, the Accused actually intended to punish the victim as lightly as possible without calling in the Kempeitai, who might actually have inflicted even more severe punishment.
On the Seventh Charge
On the accusation that the Accused planned and carried out a scheme of overworking the POWs in poor conditions, the Defence argued that he was only an interpreter, and had nothing to do with such planning. He had actually suggested giving up some unbearable working methods imposed by the Governor-General. On the question of health of the POWs, the Defence relied on the Japanese Army Doctor’s testimony and suggested that POWs were actually healthy at the relevant times.
Lastly, the Defence argued that the POWs did their work voluntarily and it was unnecessary for the Accused to inflict any violence on them at all.
Prosecutor
Major G.B. Puddicombe, Advocate (The Victoria Rifles of Canada)
Defence Counsel
Mr. Takahashi Mikio (Japanese Barrister, Senior Defending Counsel); Mr. Nibun Yurito (Japanese Barrister)
Judges
President: Lt. Col. J.C. Stewart (Dept. of JAG, India, Solicitor)
Members: Major M.I. Ormsby (West Yorks Regiment); Capt B.N. Kaul (The Frontier Force Regt.)
Members: Major M.I. Ormsby (West Yorks Regiment); Capt B.N. Kaul (The Frontier Force Regt.)
Advisory Officer
Major W.M. Gray (The Cameronians, Scottish Rifles)
Prosecution Witnesses
Capt. P.Y. Collison (War Crimes Investigation Unit, Hong Kong)
Frank Kekewich Garton (Tel-Communications Department, GPO)
Walter Lomax (Draftsman)
Mr. F.B. Miles (Manager, American Club)
Inspector Joseph Hill (Police Inspector)
Lt. H.M. Howell (Lieutenant, R.A.S.C.)
Mr J. MacDougall (Sergeant, Dockyard Police)
Tse Dichuan (Clerk)
Henry Felton Hopkins (Mercantile Assistant)
E.A.R. Newton Manager, (Nestle?s Milk Co., Hong Kong)
G.H. Oliver (Hong Kong Manager, Insurance Co, of North America)
Paccon Yeh (Interpreter, War Crimes Investigation Unit)
Mak Kee-Shing (Employee, To On Company)
Matsuda Kenichi (Internee, Stanley Fort)
Lt. F.M. Laloe (Lieutenant, Royal Navy Volunteer Reserve)
Dr. James William Anderson (Medical Practitioner)
Seino Yukio (Sergeant, Medical Corps, Japanese Army)
G.P. Ferguson (Schoolmaster, Education Department Office)
Sgt. F.W.J. Lewis (Sergeant, HQ Land Forces)
Eugene Mak (Employee, Kai Tai Aerodrome)
Defence Witnesses
Niimori Genichiro (Accused)
Major Ando Tadashi (Army Major, Japanese Army)
Capt. Saito Shunichi (Army Medical Captain, Japanese Army)
Kyoda Shigeru (Ship Captain, Nippon Yusen Kaisha. (N.B. Captain of the Lisbon Maru))
Araki Kaname (Second Mate, Hakodate Maru and Rokko Maru. (N.B. was on board of Lisbon Maru))
Sgt/Major Yoshizono Otockichi (Army Sergeant/Major, Japanese Army)
Major Hirao Yoshio (Gendarme Major, Japanese Army; O.C. Kowloon District Gendarmerie.)
Trial Dates
28-Aug-1946
29-Aug-1946
31-Aug-1946
02-Sep-1946
03-Sep-1946
04-Sep-1946
06-Sep-1946
13-Sep-1946
14-Sep-1946
16-Sep-1946
17-Sep-1946
20-Sep-1946
21-Sep-1946
23-Sep-1946
24-Sep-1946
25-Sep-1946
26-Sep-1946
01-Oct-1946
Judgement Date
01-Oct-1946
Judgement Confirmation Date
17-Oct-1946
Judgement Promulgation Date
18-Oct-1946
Judgement
Held:
1. The Accused was guilty of the 2nd, 5th, 6th and 7th Charges;
2. The Accused was guilty of the 1st but excepting therefrom the words “and responsible for the well-being of the said Prisoners of War”;
3. The Accused was guilty of the 3rd Charge but excepting therefrom the words “contributing to the death of the said Rifleman Doucette”;
4. The Accused was not guilty of the 4th Charge.
1. The Accused was guilty of the 2nd, 5th, 6th and 7th Charges;
2. The Accused was guilty of the 1st but excepting therefrom the words “and responsible for the well-being of the said Prisoners of War”;
3. The Accused was guilty of the 3rd Charge but excepting therefrom the words “contributing to the death of the said Rifleman Doucette”;
4. The Accused was not guilty of the 4th Charge.
Petition
No Petition is on the record.
There is no reviewing officer’s report from a Judge Advocate on the file.
There is no reviewing officer’s report from a Judge Advocate on the file.
Sentence Imposed
15 Years Imprisonment
Keywords
Hong Kong; Shanghai; High Seas; Lisbon Maru; Toyama Maru/Tozan Maru; "Death Ship"; Interpreter; Imperial Japanese Army; Imperial Japanese Navy; Prisoner of War; Prisoner of War Camp; Sick or Wounded; Shipwrecked; Torture; Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment; Neglect; Failure to provide adequate food and/or care; Stealing; Red Cross parcels; International Committee of the Red Cross; Poor conditions of detention; Attempted Escape; Discipline of Prisoners of War; Arbitrary or summary punishment; "concerned in"; Committed; Ordered; Superior Orders; Civilian Command Responsibility; Military Command Responsibility; Hierarchy; Scope of responsibilities; War Crime; Violations of laws and customs of war; Death from natural causes
Remarks
2 Japanese lawyers assigned to this Accused, which is unusual. There was the usual Advisory Officer attached to the Defence.
See the account by Mr. Peter Vine and the extract from Mr. Tony Banham’s book The Sinking of the Lisbon Maru, both at the Hong Kong’s War Crimes Trials section of the website.
See the account by Mr. Peter Vine and the extract from Mr. Tony Banham’s book The Sinking of the Lisbon Maru, both at the Hong Kong’s War Crimes Trials section of the website.