To access the complete case file, click here
Case No.
WO235/999
Accused
Col. Noma Kennosuke
Court
Military Court for the Trial of War Criminals No. 7
Charge Date
01-Oct-1946
Charge
Committing a War Crime
“In that, the accused, at Hong Kong between the 25th December 1941 and the 18th January 1945, as head of the Kempeitai and as such responsible for public order, the control of Kempei personnel and for the management of places of detention at Hong Kong aforesaid, was, in violation of the law of usages of war, concerned in the illtreatment of civilian residents, as a result of which numbers of them died or were unlawfully killed by members of the Japanese Forces, and many others underwent physical suffering.”
“In that, the accused, at Hong Kong between the 25th December 1941 and the 18th January 1945, as head of the Kempeitai and as such responsible for public order, the control of Kempei personnel and for the management of places of detention at Hong Kong aforesaid, was, in violation of the law of usages of war, concerned in the illtreatment of civilian residents, as a result of which numbers of them died or were unlawfully killed by members of the Japanese Forces, and many others underwent physical suffering.”
Background
The Accused, Colonel Noma Kennosuke, was the Commanding Officer of the Gendarmerie, otherwise known as the Kempeitai, in Hong Kong from the time of invasion in December 1941 to February 1945. His successor was Col. Kanazawa Asao (see Case No. WO/235/1093).
During this time, he was allegedly responsible for, inter alia, public order, control of the Kempeitai and also the management of various places of detention.
During this time, he was allegedly responsible for, inter alia, public order, control of the Kempeitai and also the management of various places of detention.
Allegations
The Prosecution sought to establish that Noma was a commander responsible for his subordinates’ violations of the laws and customs of war, including (1) Mismanagement of places of detention resulting in overcrowding, starvation, torturing, refusal of medical attention and consequential sufferings and deaths (2) Illegal executions and (3) Mass deportation of civilians from Hong Kong from about 1942 or 1943.
Mismanagement of places of detention
In respect of the first charge, the Prosecution adduced evidence from 8 different Gendarmerie stations concerning mistreatment, beating, torture, inadequate food and water and refusal to provide medical attention and the use of dogs to harass and interrogate detainees. The Prosecution argued that they had been committed by Japanese Gendarmes under the Accused’s control, and that the Accused had knowledge or otherwise warnings which he recklessly disregarded. Such knowledge was acquired from statements or complaints made by persons including the then Governor-General Isogai, members of the Chinese Co-Operative Council or from the Accused’s presence during the alleged mistreatment, and inference of such knowledge from the scale of occurrence and short distance from the Accused’s headquarters.
Illegal executions
In respect of the second charge, the Prosecution argued that there had been execution of civilians without trial. The Prosecution relied on testimonies and the admission made by the Accused that he was aware of the illegality of execution without a trial but he ordered his men to do so.
Mass “deportation” of civilians
The Prosecution argued that there had been a mass “deportation” scheme in which the Accused had volunteered to participate. It was alleged that the scheme was to remove impoverished persons to various places including the open sea; Bias Bay (now Daya Bay); Low Chow (now part of the Po Toi Islands); Mirs Bay (also known as Dapeng Bay). This was done owing to a shortage of food in Hong Kong. The policy ultimately led to the indiscriminate "deportation" of persons – including children and those who had employment. The Prosecution argued that the arrest and “deportation” of these persons was indiscriminate. The Prosecution also said that these were done with the knowledge of the Accused, who had admitted being aware that the Gendarmes were not following instructions.
Overall, the Prosecution submitted that the Accused failed to take adequate steps to correct the aforementioned acts, with the result that the detainees’ situation worsened and persons were executed in as late as 1944. The deportation scheme remained operational until 1945.
Mismanagement of places of detention
In respect of the first charge, the Prosecution adduced evidence from 8 different Gendarmerie stations concerning mistreatment, beating, torture, inadequate food and water and refusal to provide medical attention and the use of dogs to harass and interrogate detainees. The Prosecution argued that they had been committed by Japanese Gendarmes under the Accused’s control, and that the Accused had knowledge or otherwise warnings which he recklessly disregarded. Such knowledge was acquired from statements or complaints made by persons including the then Governor-General Isogai, members of the Chinese Co-Operative Council or from the Accused’s presence during the alleged mistreatment, and inference of such knowledge from the scale of occurrence and short distance from the Accused’s headquarters.
Illegal executions
In respect of the second charge, the Prosecution argued that there had been execution of civilians without trial. The Prosecution relied on testimonies and the admission made by the Accused that he was aware of the illegality of execution without a trial but he ordered his men to do so.
Mass “deportation” of civilians
The Prosecution argued that there had been a mass “deportation” scheme in which the Accused had volunteered to participate. It was alleged that the scheme was to remove impoverished persons to various places including the open sea; Bias Bay (now Daya Bay); Low Chow (now part of the Po Toi Islands); Mirs Bay (also known as Dapeng Bay). This was done owing to a shortage of food in Hong Kong. The policy ultimately led to the indiscriminate "deportation" of persons – including children and those who had employment. The Prosecution argued that the arrest and “deportation” of these persons was indiscriminate. The Prosecution also said that these were done with the knowledge of the Accused, who had admitted being aware that the Gendarmes were not following instructions.
Overall, the Prosecution submitted that the Accused failed to take adequate steps to correct the aforementioned acts, with the result that the detainees’ situation worsened and persons were executed in as late as 1944. The deportation scheme remained operational until 1945.
Defence
The Defence argued firstly, that Prosecution witnesses were biased against the Japanese and exaggerated the situation. The Defence based its challenge to the first charge primarily on this. It also claimed that dogs that were used to harass prisoners might not belong to the Gendarmerie. The responsibility regarding food supply rested with the Governor-General and not the Accused. It was also alleged that there was in fact no overcrowding nor intolerable situations; and that there had been a “certain extent” of medical attention being given.
On the point of what the Accused actually knew, the Defence submitted that the Accused could not have heard the screams of the victims of torture (in the same building); that the witness testimony concerning his presence on the scene of the torture was unreliable; that the Accused had always warned his subordinates about proper interrogation procedures.
Regarding the second charge, the Defence argued (in addition to the submission on unreliable evidence), the Accused was sometimes “compelled” to order executions further to the directions of the-then Chief of Staff. The Accused had protested such order and had also warned his subordinates that this would be an extraordinary measure.
On the issue of “deportation”, the Defence admitted there was a “plan to reduce the population” under the jurisdiction of the Governor-General. The Civil Affairs Department was responsible for the plan with, inter alia, cooperation from the Gendarmerie, which later took over the control of the execution of the plan. However, the Defence alleged that the Accused continually opposed the plan until he received an order from the Governor-General. The Defence argued that those evicted were only beggars, vagrants, minor offenders, people without rice ration cards and illegal immigrants. It argued that there could have been a mistake in the deportation policy, but that should not be blamed on the Kempeitai, but on the Civil Affairs Department and the Governor-General who insisted on stern application of the policy. The Accused only faithfully executed the order from his superiors.
Furthermore, the Defence argued that there was only one instance of illegal execution, an isolated incident, which was also done pursuant to a superior order. It also submitted that he lacked knowledge of any illegal acts since he had been continually cautioning his subordinates. When he had knowledge of some misconduct, he had imposed severe punishments on the offenders. Therefore, he would have punished the wrongdoer had he been informed of the alleged acts. Furthermore, he should not be blamed for the lack of knowledge since the lower subordinates were supervised by District Commanders, who were already supervised by the Accused by requiring daily reports or weekly meetings.
On the point of what the Accused actually knew, the Defence submitted that the Accused could not have heard the screams of the victims of torture (in the same building); that the witness testimony concerning his presence on the scene of the torture was unreliable; that the Accused had always warned his subordinates about proper interrogation procedures.
Regarding the second charge, the Defence argued (in addition to the submission on unreliable evidence), the Accused was sometimes “compelled” to order executions further to the directions of the-then Chief of Staff. The Accused had protested such order and had also warned his subordinates that this would be an extraordinary measure.
On the issue of “deportation”, the Defence admitted there was a “plan to reduce the population” under the jurisdiction of the Governor-General. The Civil Affairs Department was responsible for the plan with, inter alia, cooperation from the Gendarmerie, which later took over the control of the execution of the plan. However, the Defence alleged that the Accused continually opposed the plan until he received an order from the Governor-General. The Defence argued that those evicted were only beggars, vagrants, minor offenders, people without rice ration cards and illegal immigrants. It argued that there could have been a mistake in the deportation policy, but that should not be blamed on the Kempeitai, but on the Civil Affairs Department and the Governor-General who insisted on stern application of the policy. The Accused only faithfully executed the order from his superiors.
Furthermore, the Defence argued that there was only one instance of illegal execution, an isolated incident, which was also done pursuant to a superior order. It also submitted that he lacked knowledge of any illegal acts since he had been continually cautioning his subordinates. When he had knowledge of some misconduct, he had imposed severe punishments on the offenders. Therefore, he would have punished the wrongdoer had he been informed of the alleged acts. Furthermore, he should not be blamed for the lack of knowledge since the lower subordinates were supervised by District Commanders, who were already supervised by the Accused by requiring daily reports or weekly meetings.
Prosecutor
Major D.G. McGregor (Black Watch)
Defence Counsel
Yoshizumi Tatsuichi (Japan, Barrister-at-law)
The Court denied the Accused’s request for an English Defence Counsel.
The Court denied the Accused’s request for an English Defence Counsel.
Judges
President: Lt. Col. C.F. Bell (Dept. of JAG, India, Barrister-at-law); Members: Major M.I. Ormsby (West Yorks Regiment); Capt R.B.R. Gorely (King’s Royal Rifle Corps.)
Advisory Officer
Capt. J.N. Whitehorn
Prosecution Witnesses
Capt. Henry Claude Glover(Capt. Of British Army attached to War Crimes Investigation)
Lt. Yau Dick-yee(Intelligence Officer)
Sgt/Major Akamatsu Keisuke(Gendarme attached to the Western District)
Insp. David Mann(Police Officer)
Matsuda Kinichiro(Interpreter to David Mann)
J.A. Stericker(Factory Manager)
Lt.-Col. Kogi Kasuo(Prosecutor at Court-Martial, Person-in-Charge of the Stanley Prison)
Lt.-Col. Kanazawa Asao(Person-in-Charge of the Police Affairs Department of the Government-General)
Dr. Siegfried Ramler(Physician)
George Tong(Court Interpreter of the No. 7 War Crimes Court)
Fred Nogami(Linguist, War Crimes Investigation Unit, C.S.M., Canadian Intelligence Corps)
Cheng Kwai(Construction Businessman)
Lam Wah(Farmer)
Lam Kiu-Wai(Construction Businessman)
Jerome Edward Law(Merchant)
Joseph Venpin(Merchant)
Lau Yiu-Tung(Police Interpreter, Stanley Police Station)
Ho Shu(Policeman, Causeway and Taikoo Station)
Tang Kuen(Policeman, Police Training School and Eastern Gendarmerie)
William Hong Sling(Unknown position, Government Relief Section)
Cyril Munro Faure(Merchant)
George Samuel Ladd(Accountant)
Archibald Gilbert Gardner(Merchant)
Miss Beatrice Chan(Unemployed (On Pension))
Cheng Sung(Farmer)
Denis Victor(Owner of a Dancing Hall)
Noma Isame(Interpreter)
Tsang Pei-Fu(Unemployed, had worked in the gaol in the Central Police State / Western Gendarmerie)
Edward David Sykes(Merchant)
Tam Choi(Policeman, Western District Gendarmerie)
Lai Chung-Yiu(Junior Clerk in the Government Service.)
Cheng Mo-Ching(Unknown (Spouse of an arrestee))
Dr. Kwok-Wing Chuan(Dental Practitioner)
Abdul Kadir Omar(Supervisor, Hong Kong Diary Farm, Ice and Cold Storage Co. Ltd.)
Mrs. Mary E. Silva Dorabjee(Unknown)
Capt. Rudy Choy(Land Forces, Hong Kong)
Wu Wai(Professor in Accounting)
Frederick Tyndall(Assistant Engineer and Manager, Hong Kong Gas Co.)
Lau Shiu-Chuen(Unknown, Broadcasting Station.)
Dinga Dharamdas Sehwani(Merchant)
Choy Hing-Cheung(Mechanic)
Rampal Ghilote(Civil Servant)
Inouye Kanao(Interpreter, Hong Kong Gendarmerie Headquarter)
Ho Fook-Sang(Rent Collector)
Chan Wai-Chi(Unknown (Spouse of a detainee))
Li Koon-Chun(Merchant)
Chan Heung-Pak(Secretary, Kwong Fat Yuen Hong; Chinese Co-operative Council.)
Major Chan Ying Hung(Legal Major, War Crimes Investigation Unit, Hong Kong)
To Wai(Interpreter and Translator)
Sir Robert Hormus Kotewall(Merchant)
Tsang Mau-Ting(Unknown (Spouse of a detainee))
Kwok Po-Man(Assistant Chief Clerk, War Crimes Investigation Unit)
Pang Yam-Sing(Fisherman. Formerly Watchman of the Swimming Sheds)
Charles Alexander Allen(Journalist, South China Morning Post)
Lai Kam-Shing(Fish Merchant)
Li Chung-Ching(Building Contractor)
Kwok Kin-Wang(Merchant)
Kan Man(Merchant)
David Ronald Holmes(Officer, British Army Aid Group)
Major Douglas Gordon McGregor(Prosecutor, No. 7 War Crimes Court)
Defence Witnesses
Col. Noma Kennosuke(Accused)
Capt. Yatagai Sukeo(Assistant to the Chief of Hong Kong Gendarmerie)
Major Shiozawa Kunio(Gendarme Major)
Hayashi Sadataro(Gendarme Sergeant/Major)
Hirao Yoshio(Gendarme Major)
Lt. Imamure Ichiro(Lieutenant-Commander, Intelligence Section)
Capt. Shibeta Shigeo(Gendarme Captain, Eastern District Gendermerie)
Robert Steen Smith(Assistant Crown Solicitor, Hong Kong Government)
Sgt. Nagahara Masakichi(Gendarme Sergeant)
Capt. Yushiyama Yukio(Gendarme Captain)
Capt. John Neville Whitehorn(Advisory Officer, No. 7 War Crimes Court)
Ichiko Hiroshi(Interpreter, War Crimes Court)
Yamamoto Tomonori(Interpreter, War Crimes Court)
Sgt. Matsuda Kenichi(Gendarme Sergeant)
Trial Dates
24-Dec-1946
28-Dec-1946
30-Dec-1946
31-Dec-1946
02-Jan-1947
03-Jan-1947
04-Jan-1947
06-Jan-1947
07-Jan-1947
08-Jan-1947
09-Jan-1947
10-Jan-1947
11-Jan-1947
13-Jan-1947
14-Jan-1947
16-Jan-1947
10-Feb-1947
11-Feb-1947
12-Feb-1947
13-Feb-1947
14-Feb-1947
15-Feb-1947
17-Feb-1947
18-Feb-1947
24-Feb-1947
Judgement Date
24-Feb-1947
Judgement Confirmation Date
14-May-1947
Judgement Promulgation Date
23-May-1947
Judgement
Held:
1. The Accused was guilty;
2. The Accused be sentenced to death by hanging.
1. The Accused was guilty;
2. The Accused be sentenced to death by hanging.
Petition
There is no record of a petition.
According to the review of the Judge Advocate on 18 April 1947 [Unidentified Brigadier, DJAG, South East Asia Land Forces], “there was ample evidence to support the findings of the court and I advise confirmation of the proceedings”. He observed that “There is no doubt that detention, torture and deaths through various causes, including illegal execution, can be laid at the door of the gendarmerie and that the Accused was implicated. During the trial he admitted that he had ordered the execution without trial of certain civilians at the command of the Chief of Staff.”
The Judge Advocate reported that the Defence pointed out that several Prosecution witnesses were collaborators and might well be motivated by a desire to curry favour with the British administration. “The evidence of witnesses showed many discrepancies and defence counsel sought to attack their credibility. It was also argued that the Accused was a conscientious officer and that malpractices, if any, on the part of his subordinates were done without his knowledge or consent.”
According to the review of the Judge Advocate on 18 April 1947 [Unidentified Brigadier, DJAG, South East Asia Land Forces], “there was ample evidence to support the findings of the court and I advise confirmation of the proceedings”. He observed that “There is no doubt that detention, torture and deaths through various causes, including illegal execution, can be laid at the door of the gendarmerie and that the Accused was implicated. During the trial he admitted that he had ordered the execution without trial of certain civilians at the command of the Chief of Staff.”
The Judge Advocate reported that the Defence pointed out that several Prosecution witnesses were collaborators and might well be motivated by a desire to curry favour with the British administration. “The evidence of witnesses showed many discrepancies and defence counsel sought to attack their credibility. It was also argued that the Accused was a conscientious officer and that malpractices, if any, on the part of his subordinates were done without his knowledge or consent.”
Sentence Imposed
Death Penalty, carried out on 27 May 1947 at Stanley Prison, Hong Kong
Keywords
Hong Kong; Kempeitai; Gendarme/Gendarmes/Gendarmerie; Civilians; Place of Detention; Interrogation; Forced transfer/deportation; Torture; Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment; Unlawful Killing; Neglect; Starvation; Failure to provide adequate food and/or care; Poor conditions of detention; Ordering; "concerned in"; Military Command Responsibility; Ordered; Superior Orders; Duress; Mitigating Circumstances; War Crimes; Violations of laws and customs of war
Remarks
Link to the case of his successor, Col. Kanazawa Asao (WO/235/1093), and all Hong Kong Kempeitai cases from 25 December 1941 to 10 February 1945.