To access the complete case file, click here
Part 1 Part 2 Part 3Case No.
WO235/1012
Accused
Col. Tokunaga Isao (D1)
Capt. Saito Shunkichi (D2)
Lt. Tanaka Hitochi (D3)
Int. Tsutada Itsuo (D4)
Sgt. Harada Jotaro (D5)
Court
Military Court for the Trial of War Criminals No. [not stated]
Charge
First Charge (against all Accused)
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, in that they at SHAM SHUI PO, HONG KONG, between the 24 January 1942 and the 15 August 1945 when members of the Prisoners-of-War Camp Staff under the command of the first named accused, and responsible for the well-being of British, Canadian and Dutch Prisoners-of-War interned in the SHAM SHUI PO Prisoners-of-War Camp were, in violation of the laws and usages or war, together concerned in the inhumane treatment of the said Prisoners-of-War resulting in the deaths of some and in physical sufferings to others.”
Second Charge (against D1 and D2)
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, in that they at SHAM SHUI PO, HONG KONG, between the 24 January 1942 and the 26 September 1942 or thereabouts when Commandant and Medical Officer respectively of all; Prisoners-of-War Camps in Hong Kong, and responsible for the well-being of British, and Canadian Prisoners-of-War, in violation of the laws and usages or war, together concerned in the inhumane treatment of the said Prisoners-of-War resulting in the deaths of some and in physical sufferings to others.”
Third Charge (against D1, D2 and D3)
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, in that they in KOWLOON, HONG KONG, between April 1942 and May 1944 or thereabouts when the accused Col. Tokunaga Isao and the accused Capt. Saito Shunkichi were respectively Commandant and Medical Officer of all Prisoners-of-War Camps in Hong Kong and the accused Lt. Tanaka Hitochi was Commandant of the UPPER ARGYLE STREET OFFICERS CAMP, and responsible for the well-being of British, and Canadian Prisoners-of-War serving on the medical staff and/or receiving treatment at the said UPPER ARGYLE STREET OFFICER CAMP, were, in violation of the laws and usages or war, together concerned in the inhumane treatment of the said Prisoners-of-War resulting in the deaths of some and in physical sufferings to others.”
Fourth Charge (against D1 and D2)
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, in that they in KOWLOON, HONG KONG, between February 1942 and the 16 June 1942 or thereabouts when Commandant and Medical Officer in HONG KONG, and responsible for the well-being of British, and Canadian Prisoners-of-War serving on the medical staff and/or receiving treatment at the INDIAN MILITARY HOSPITAL at ARGYLE STREET, KOWLOON, HONG KONG, were, in violation of the laws and usages of war, together concerned in the inhumane treatment of the said Prisoners-of-War resulting in the deaths of some and in physical sufferings to others.”
Fifth Charge (against D1 and D2)
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, in that they in KOWLOON, HONG KONG, between the 24 January 1942 and the 15 August 1945 or thereabouts when Commandant and Medical Officer of all Prisoners-of-War Camps in HONG KONG, and responsible for the well-being of British and Canadian Prisoners-of-War serving on the medical staff and/or receiving treatment at the BOWEN ROAD HOSPITAL, HONG KONG, were, in violation of the laws and usages of war, together concerned in the inhumane treatment of the said Prisoner-of-War resulting in the deaths of some and in physical sufferings to others.”
Sixth Charge (against D1 and D2)
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, in that they at the Prisoners-of-War Camp HQ’s at FORFAR STREET, KOWLOON, HONG KONG, in or about the month of August 1942 when Commandant and intelligence officer respectively of the Prisoners-of-War Camp Headquarters, were in violation of the laws and usages of war, together concerned in the maltreatment of Sgt. J.O. Payne, L/Cpl G. Berzenski, Pte. J.H. Adams and Pte. P.J. Ellis, all Canadian Prisoners-of-War then in their custody and command.”
Seventh Charge (against D1)
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME in that he on or about the month of August 1942 when Commandant of all Prisoners-of-War Camp in HONG KONG, was, in violation of the laws and usages of war, concerned in the killing of Sgt. J.O. Payne, L/Cpl G. Berzenski, Pte. J.H. Adams and Pte. P.J. Ellis, all Canadian Prisoners-of-War then in their custody and command.”
Eighth Charge (against D1)
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME in that he at HONG KONG on or about 14 September 1942 when Commandant of all Prisoners-of-War Camps in HONG KONG, was, in violation of the laws and usages of war, concerned in the killing of Pte. V. Branson, L/Cpl. W.G. Byrne, P. Connely, Pte. J. Steppworth and Pte. M.T. Dunne, all British Prisoners-of-War in his custody and command.”
Ninth Charge (against D1)
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME in that he at HONG KONG on or about October 1942 and 15 August 1945 when Commandant of all Prisoners-of-War CAMPS IN HONG KONG, did, in violation of the laws and usages of war, misappropriate for his own use and benefit Red Cross supplies of food, medicine, clothes and other comforts intended for the Prisoners-of-War interned in Hong Kong, and further did permit and condone the misappropriation of such Red Cross supplies by his staff.”
Tenth Charge (against D1)
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME in that he at divers places in HONG KONG between 24 January 1942 and 15 August 1945 when Commandant of all Prisoners-of-War Camps in Hong Kong, was, in violation of the laws and usages of war, concerned in the beating, torture and unlawful killing of numerous Chinese Civilians in Hong Kong aforesaid.”
Eleventh Charge (against D3)
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, in that he, at No. 167 ARGYLE STREET, KOWLOON, HONG KONG, in or about the month of August 1943 when Commandant of the UPPER ARGYLE STREET OFFICERS CAMP and concurrently O.i/c Intelligence Section, Prisoners-of-War Camps Headquarters, was, in violation of the laws and usages of war, concerned in the maltreatment of two unidentified Chinese Drivers and Lt. HADDOCK and one or more other British Prisoners-of-War then in his custody and command.”
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, in that they at SHAM SHUI PO, HONG KONG, between the 24 January 1942 and the 15 August 1945 when members of the Prisoners-of-War Camp Staff under the command of the first named accused, and responsible for the well-being of British, Canadian and Dutch Prisoners-of-War interned in the SHAM SHUI PO Prisoners-of-War Camp were, in violation of the laws and usages or war, together concerned in the inhumane treatment of the said Prisoners-of-War resulting in the deaths of some and in physical sufferings to others.”
Second Charge (against D1 and D2)
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, in that they at SHAM SHUI PO, HONG KONG, between the 24 January 1942 and the 26 September 1942 or thereabouts when Commandant and Medical Officer respectively of all; Prisoners-of-War Camps in Hong Kong, and responsible for the well-being of British, and Canadian Prisoners-of-War, in violation of the laws and usages or war, together concerned in the inhumane treatment of the said Prisoners-of-War resulting in the deaths of some and in physical sufferings to others.”
Third Charge (against D1, D2 and D3)
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, in that they in KOWLOON, HONG KONG, between April 1942 and May 1944 or thereabouts when the accused Col. Tokunaga Isao and the accused Capt. Saito Shunkichi were respectively Commandant and Medical Officer of all Prisoners-of-War Camps in Hong Kong and the accused Lt. Tanaka Hitochi was Commandant of the UPPER ARGYLE STREET OFFICERS CAMP, and responsible for the well-being of British, and Canadian Prisoners-of-War serving on the medical staff and/or receiving treatment at the said UPPER ARGYLE STREET OFFICER CAMP, were, in violation of the laws and usages or war, together concerned in the inhumane treatment of the said Prisoners-of-War resulting in the deaths of some and in physical sufferings to others.”
Fourth Charge (against D1 and D2)
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, in that they in KOWLOON, HONG KONG, between February 1942 and the 16 June 1942 or thereabouts when Commandant and Medical Officer in HONG KONG, and responsible for the well-being of British, and Canadian Prisoners-of-War serving on the medical staff and/or receiving treatment at the INDIAN MILITARY HOSPITAL at ARGYLE STREET, KOWLOON, HONG KONG, were, in violation of the laws and usages of war, together concerned in the inhumane treatment of the said Prisoners-of-War resulting in the deaths of some and in physical sufferings to others.”
Fifth Charge (against D1 and D2)
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, in that they in KOWLOON, HONG KONG, between the 24 January 1942 and the 15 August 1945 or thereabouts when Commandant and Medical Officer of all Prisoners-of-War Camps in HONG KONG, and responsible for the well-being of British and Canadian Prisoners-of-War serving on the medical staff and/or receiving treatment at the BOWEN ROAD HOSPITAL, HONG KONG, were, in violation of the laws and usages of war, together concerned in the inhumane treatment of the said Prisoner-of-War resulting in the deaths of some and in physical sufferings to others.”
Sixth Charge (against D1 and D2)
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, in that they at the Prisoners-of-War Camp HQ’s at FORFAR STREET, KOWLOON, HONG KONG, in or about the month of August 1942 when Commandant and intelligence officer respectively of the Prisoners-of-War Camp Headquarters, were in violation of the laws and usages of war, together concerned in the maltreatment of Sgt. J.O. Payne, L/Cpl G. Berzenski, Pte. J.H. Adams and Pte. P.J. Ellis, all Canadian Prisoners-of-War then in their custody and command.”
Seventh Charge (against D1)
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME in that he on or about the month of August 1942 when Commandant of all Prisoners-of-War Camp in HONG KONG, was, in violation of the laws and usages of war, concerned in the killing of Sgt. J.O. Payne, L/Cpl G. Berzenski, Pte. J.H. Adams and Pte. P.J. Ellis, all Canadian Prisoners-of-War then in their custody and command.”
Eighth Charge (against D1)
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME in that he at HONG KONG on or about 14 September 1942 when Commandant of all Prisoners-of-War Camps in HONG KONG, was, in violation of the laws and usages of war, concerned in the killing of Pte. V. Branson, L/Cpl. W.G. Byrne, P. Connely, Pte. J. Steppworth and Pte. M.T. Dunne, all British Prisoners-of-War in his custody and command.”
Ninth Charge (against D1)
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME in that he at HONG KONG on or about October 1942 and 15 August 1945 when Commandant of all Prisoners-of-War CAMPS IN HONG KONG, did, in violation of the laws and usages of war, misappropriate for his own use and benefit Red Cross supplies of food, medicine, clothes and other comforts intended for the Prisoners-of-War interned in Hong Kong, and further did permit and condone the misappropriation of such Red Cross supplies by his staff.”
Tenth Charge (against D1)
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME in that he at divers places in HONG KONG between 24 January 1942 and 15 August 1945 when Commandant of all Prisoners-of-War Camps in Hong Kong, was, in violation of the laws and usages of war, concerned in the beating, torture and unlawful killing of numerous Chinese Civilians in Hong Kong aforesaid.”
Eleventh Charge (against D3)
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, in that he, at No. 167 ARGYLE STREET, KOWLOON, HONG KONG, in or about the month of August 1943 when Commandant of the UPPER ARGYLE STREET OFFICERS CAMP and concurrently O.i/c Intelligence Section, Prisoners-of-War Camps Headquarters, was, in violation of the laws and usages of war, concerned in the maltreatment of two unidentified Chinese Drivers and Lt. HADDOCK and one or more other British Prisoners-of-War then in his custody and command.”
Background
This is the leading case concerning the treatment of Allied Prisoners-of-War (‘POWs’) held by the Imperial Japanese Army in POW camps across Hong Kong, covering the conditions of detention and also maltreatment including killings.
D1 was at all material times in charge of all POW Camps in Hong Kong and held overall responsibility for their proper administration. He was prosecuted on charges 1-10 inclusive.
D2 was on the first accused’s staff as medical officer in charge of all POW camps. He was prosecuted on charges 1-5.
D3 was Chief of the Intelligence or Information Section and was responsible for the investigation of documents and identity of POWs, he was also in April 1944 appointed adjutant. He was prosecuted on charges 1, 3, 6 and 11.
D4 and D5 were on the Camp staff. They were only prosecuted on the first charge.
D1 was at all material times in charge of all POW Camps in Hong Kong and held overall responsibility for their proper administration. He was prosecuted on charges 1-10 inclusive.
D2 was on the first accused’s staff as medical officer in charge of all POW camps. He was prosecuted on charges 1-5.
D3 was Chief of the Intelligence or Information Section and was responsible for the investigation of documents and identity of POWs, he was also in April 1944 appointed adjutant. He was prosecuted on charges 1, 3, 6 and 11.
D4 and D5 were on the Camp staff. They were only prosecuted on the first charge.
Allegations
The Prosecution argued that, after the consolidation of the occupation of Hong Kong, conditions in POW Camps deteriorated. The conditions were appalling. The senior Japanese officers did little, if anything, to improve matters and the subordinates followed suit. Owing to lack of proper supervision etc. many prisoners died unnecessarily and many were ill treated when they should never have been. Red Cross supplies were misdirected and misused. Escaping prisoners were shot without trial.
First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Charge (The General Charges)
These charges were concerned with the alleged ill-treatment of POWs in various camps and hospitals in Hong Kong and with the general administration of them. They covered
• Inadequate accommodation, sanitation, food and clothing.
• Harsh treatment of sick POWs and failure to provide drugs and other facilities for their treatment.
• Beating and ill-treatment.
• Working parties sent on war work and dangerous projects.
• Inhumane working of POWs when physically unfit.
• Compulsory signing of a parole.
• Collective Punishment.
• General ill-treatment.
Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Charge (The POWs Escape Charges)
These charges concerned the escape and recapture of 4 named Canadian POWs and the attempted escape of 5 named British POWs. The 6th charge concerns the ill-treatment of the Canadians; the 7th charge related to the execution of the Canadians while the 8th charge related to the execution of the British (who attempted to escape by having dug a tunnel for that purpose but were caught before escaping).
Ninth Charge (The Misappropriation Charge)
This charge concerned the misappropriation of Red Cross supplies.
Tenth Charge (The Civilian Ill-Treatment Charge)
This charge concerned the ill-treatment and killing of Chinese civilians by D1. It was alleged that D1 knew and connived at such misdoings such as beatings, shootings and murder.
Eleventh Charge (The Civilian/POWs Ill-treatment Charge)
This charge also concerned the ill-treatment and killing of Chinese civilians, but by D3.
First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Charge (The General Charges)
These charges were concerned with the alleged ill-treatment of POWs in various camps and hospitals in Hong Kong and with the general administration of them. They covered
• Inadequate accommodation, sanitation, food and clothing.
• Harsh treatment of sick POWs and failure to provide drugs and other facilities for their treatment.
• Beating and ill-treatment.
• Working parties sent on war work and dangerous projects.
• Inhumane working of POWs when physically unfit.
• Compulsory signing of a parole.
• Collective Punishment.
• General ill-treatment.
Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Charge (The POWs Escape Charges)
These charges concerned the escape and recapture of 4 named Canadian POWs and the attempted escape of 5 named British POWs. The 6th charge concerns the ill-treatment of the Canadians; the 7th charge related to the execution of the Canadians while the 8th charge related to the execution of the British (who attempted to escape by having dug a tunnel for that purpose but were caught before escaping).
Ninth Charge (The Misappropriation Charge)
This charge concerned the misappropriation of Red Cross supplies.
Tenth Charge (The Civilian Ill-Treatment Charge)
This charge concerned the ill-treatment and killing of Chinese civilians by D1. It was alleged that D1 knew and connived at such misdoings such as beatings, shootings and murder.
Eleventh Charge (The Civilian/POWs Ill-treatment Charge)
This charge also concerned the ill-treatment and killing of Chinese civilians, but by D3.
Defence
The two main lines of defence were firstly, that the Accused did all they could in the circumstances and secondly that Superior Orders had to be obeyed. The Accused admitted that minor offences had been committed, but the gravity of the acts was said to be exaggerated by the Prosecution.
First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Charge (The General Charges)
In general terms, the Defence denied the claim of poor conditions in the camps.
For D1, it was argued that in some instances, the POWs themselves contributed to their own discomfort in that, for example, they traded their messing equipment for cigarettes. The main line of the Defence, was, however, that in spite of the lack of co-operation from other Military Departments, the accused did all in his power to ameliorate the lot of prisoners.
D2 argued that he was only responsible for supervising the POWs’ own medical officers in respect of diagnosis and treatment. He was never responsible for the health of the POWs. It was admitted that the sanitary equipment in its widest sense “left something to be desired”. But, the main line of defence was that he did his best in extremely difficult circumstances.
D3 argued that he was in no position either to control the guards directly all the time or to give orders to interpreters, and therefore should not to be held responsible for their misdeeds.
D4 and D5 accused argued that the Prosecution’s case was shaky with insufficient evidence. They admitted assaulting POWs but they denied these assaults as being as severe as averred by the Prosecution. They also relied on the Defence of superior order.
Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Charge (The POWs' Escape Charges)
For the seventh and eighth charges, the Accused pleaded the defence of Superior Orders from the Chief of Staff of the Governor-General’s Office. They carried out the orders, despite knowing that according to the law, POWs must have a trial before being executed.
Ninth Charge (The Misappropriation Charge)
The Defence made light of the Prosecution’s evidence. Such items that came his way were gifts. Such items came through theft by dock labourers or by POWs selling supplies in exchange for cigarettes etc.
Tenth Charge (The Civilian Ill-Treatment Charge)
The Defence mainly argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the charge. There was weak, contradictory or exaggerated testimony given by Prosecution witnesses.
Eleventh Charge (The Civilian/POW Ill-Treatment Charge)
The Defence mainly argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the charge based on weak, contradictory or exaggerated testimony given by Prosecution witnesses.
First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Charge (The General Charges)
In general terms, the Defence denied the claim of poor conditions in the camps.
For D1, it was argued that in some instances, the POWs themselves contributed to their own discomfort in that, for example, they traded their messing equipment for cigarettes. The main line of the Defence, was, however, that in spite of the lack of co-operation from other Military Departments, the accused did all in his power to ameliorate the lot of prisoners.
D2 argued that he was only responsible for supervising the POWs’ own medical officers in respect of diagnosis and treatment. He was never responsible for the health of the POWs. It was admitted that the sanitary equipment in its widest sense “left something to be desired”. But, the main line of defence was that he did his best in extremely difficult circumstances.
D3 argued that he was in no position either to control the guards directly all the time or to give orders to interpreters, and therefore should not to be held responsible for their misdeeds.
D4 and D5 accused argued that the Prosecution’s case was shaky with insufficient evidence. They admitted assaulting POWs but they denied these assaults as being as severe as averred by the Prosecution. They also relied on the Defence of superior order.
Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Charge (The POWs' Escape Charges)
For the seventh and eighth charges, the Accused pleaded the defence of Superior Orders from the Chief of Staff of the Governor-General’s Office. They carried out the orders, despite knowing that according to the law, POWs must have a trial before being executed.
Ninth Charge (The Misappropriation Charge)
The Defence made light of the Prosecution’s evidence. Such items that came his way were gifts. Such items came through theft by dock labourers or by POWs selling supplies in exchange for cigarettes etc.
Tenth Charge (The Civilian Ill-Treatment Charge)
The Defence mainly argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the charge. There was weak, contradictory or exaggerated testimony given by Prosecution witnesses.
Eleventh Charge (The Civilian/POW Ill-Treatment Charge)
The Defence mainly argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the charge based on weak, contradictory or exaggerated testimony given by Prosecution witnesses.
Prosecutor
Major G.B. Puddicombe, Advocate (The Victoria Rifles of Canada)
Defence Counsel
Mr. Fujita Tetsuo (Japanese Barrister, Judge of the Court of Hiroshima)
Mr. Hagezawa
Mr. Hagezawa
Judges
President: Lt. Col. R.C. Laming (Dept. of JAG, India, Barrister-at-Law)
Members: Major J.T. Loranger (JAG Department, Canadian Army) Capt K.R. Busfield (R.A.C.)
Members: Major J.T. Loranger (JAG Department, Canadian Army) Capt K.R. Busfield (R.A.C.)
Advisory Officer
Lt. J. Benyon R.E.
Prosecution Witnesses
Lt-Col. J.N.B. Crawford(Lieutenant-Colonel, Royal Canadian Medical Corps; Ex-Prisoner-of-War)
Roy Ito(Sergeant, Canadian Intelligence Corpsl Interpreter and Translator, War Crimes Investigation Team, Hong Kong)
Capt. F.V. Collison(Captain, No. 14 War Crimes Investigation Team, Hong Kong)
Dr. A.M. Rodrigues(Medical Practitioner, Hong Kong Volunteer Field Ambulance; Ex-Prisoner-of-War)
Sgt. F. Nogami(Sgt. Major, Canadian Intelligence Corps, Linguist attached to SECIC)
Major G.B. Puddicombe (Prosecutor)(Major, Victoria Rifles of Canadian Army. Officer in charge of the Canadian War Crimes Liaison Detachment, Japanese Area, Hong Kong)
Mr. Tse Dickuan(Clerk, War Crimes Investigation Unit)
Lt.-Col . E.J.R. Mitchell(Commander. Hong Kong Volunteer Defence Corps; Manager, Manufacturers? Life Insurance Company. Ex-Prisoner-of-War)
Mr. Prophet(Chartered Accountant; Member, Hong Kong Volunteer Defence Force; Ex-Prisoner-of-War)
Sgt.Major. Lewis(Warrant Officer, Class II, Royal Artillery; Ex-Prisoner-of-War)
Mr. T.A.Pearce(Employee, John D Hutchinson & Co.; Lieutenant, Royal Artillery; Ex-Prisoner-of-War)
Major C.F. Miles(Chief Steward of the Hong Kong Government Medical Department)
Dr. J.W. Anderson(Surgeon; Temporary Major, Royal Army Medical Corps, Hong Kong)
Lt. Col. E.C. Frederick(Lieut-Colonel; Ex-Prisoner-of-War)
Mr. H.F. Hopkin(Mercantile Assistant, Jardine Matheson & Co. Ltd.; Ex-Prisoner-of-War)
Mr. R. Nazarin(Accountant/Acting Manager, Harry Wickin & Co.)
Mr. Lewis Guy(Chemist, Manager, of the Wholesale Department, Watson & Co.)
Dr. Coombes(Medical Practitionerl Port Health Officer, Port Health Officer; Physician, R.A.M.C.; Ex-Prisoner-of-War)
Mr. Wan Kwok Chin(Storage Clerk, Dairy Farm)
Mr. Fogwill(Health Inspector Member, H.K.R.N.V.R.; Ex-Prisoner-of-War)
Mr. Rowan(Pharmacist, Kwong Wah Drug Company)
Mr. Leung Kwok Tai(Senior Laboratory Assistant, Hong Kong Government Bacteriological Institute; Technical Expert for the Japanese Occupying Power.)
Mr. T.P. Jackson(Officer Superintendent of the British Consul General in Canton.; Ex-Prisoner-of-War)
Kochi Shegekajiro(English Interpreter, Japanese Army)
Mr. A. Mabb(Insurance Officer; Ex-Prisoner-of-War)
Lt.Col. Baillie(Lt.-Col., 1st Battalion, Winnipeg Grenadier, Canadian Army, Ex-Prisoner-of-War)
Capt. H.C. Glover(Sub-L.t, Hong Kong Royal Navy Volunteer Reserve; Ex-Prisoner-of-War)
Mr. De Silva(Employee, Sherbrock Insurance Life Agency; Lieutenant, H.K.V.D.C.; Ex-Prisoner-of-War)
Mr. Palmer(Mercantile Assistant, Brice Bradley & Co.; Ex-Prisoner-of-War)
Mr. E.P. Wiseman(Lieutenant, Acting Captain, Royal Army Service Corps Ex-Prisoner-of-War)
Mr.W. Stoker(Lieutenant, H.K.V.D.C.; Ex-Prisoner-of-War)
Mr. Henry K.Y. Hsu(Director and Manager, New Asiatic Chemical Works)
Tong Met(Employee, Sam Lee)
Sano Ukio(Member, Japanese Army)
Mr. Victal(Employee, Macao Radio Club; Private Salesman)
Mr. Matsuda(Interpreter, POW Headquarter, Forfar Street)
Mr. Leung Lui(Motor car driver)
Mak Kee Shing(Employee, POW Camps at Forfar Street)
Mr. Eugene Mak(Overseer, Kai Tak Aerodrome)
Lt.Col. Kerr(Lieut-Col., Officer Commanding War Crimes Investigation Team)
Mr. G.A.v. Hall(Architect, PWD Hong Kong; Ex-Prisoner-of-War)
Mr. E. Newton(Manager Nestles; Ex-Prisoner-of-War)
Niimori Genichiro(Civilian Interpreter, Japanese Army (See the Lisbon Maru Case))
Major Lightbody(Major, Royal Artillery)
Mr. Tausz(Manager, Refrigeration Department, Gillman & Co.; Ex-Prisoner-of-War)
Mr. Baretto(British subject)
Foon Kit Fong(Employee, first accused?s Officer)
Mr. T.R. Ingram(Employee, Architect?s Officer of Public Works, Hong Kong; Ex-internee)
Major Ando(Major, 10th Area Army, Staff Officer, Formosa)
Mr. Kwok(Senior Clerk)
Defence Witnesses
Col. Tokunaga Isao(First Accused)
Dr./ Capt. Saito Shunkichi(Second Accused)
Lieut Tanaka Hitoshi(Third Accused)
Interpreter Tsutada(Fourth Accused)
Harada Jotaro(Fifth accused)
Major General Shoji Toshishige(Army Major General, Japanese Army)
Capt. Ushiyama Yokio(Gendarme Captain)
Major Hirao Yoshio(Gendarme Major, C.O. Kowloon District)
Interpreter Inouye(Interpreter, Sham Shui Po POW Camp)
Cpl. Seino(Army Captain)
Major Ando(Major, 10th Area Army, Staff Officer, Formosa)
Mr. Evans(Manager, British Cigarette Company; Ex-internee. (was on board of Lisbon Maru))
Mr. L.J. Silva(Clerk, Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank; Ex-internee)
Court Witnesses
Mr. H.J. Armstrong(Solicitor)
Trial Dates
17-Oct-1946
18-Oct-1946
19-Oct-1946
30-Nov-1946
03-Dec-1946
04-Dec-1946
05-Dec-1946
06-Dec-1946
07-Dec-1946
09-Dec-1946
10-Dec-1946
11-Dec-1946
12-Dec-1946
13-Dec-1946
14-Dec-1946
16-Dec-1946
17-Dec-1946
18-Dec-1946
19-Dec-1946
20-Dec-1946
21-Dec-1946
23-Dec-1946
24-Dec-1946
27-Dec-1946
28-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
15-Jan-1947
16-Jan-1947
17-Jan-1947
18-Jan-1947
20-Jan-1947
21-Jan-1947
22-Jan-1947
23-Jan-1947
24-Jan-1947
25-Jan-1947
27-Jan-1947
28-Jan-1947
29-Jan-1947
30-Jan-1947
06-Feb-1947
12-Feb-1947
14-Feb-1947
Judgement Date
14-Feb-1947
Judgement Confirmation Date
25-Jun-1947
Judgement Promulgation Date
02-Jul-1947
Judgement
Held:
1. On the first charge:
• D1 was guilty, except that the court found that he held the command of the POW Camp Staff Hong Kong between 31th January 1942 and 15th August 1945 or thereabouts.
• D2 was guilty, except that the court found that he was a member of the POW Camp Staff Hong Kong between the dates as found in the special finding as to the first accused.
• D3 was guilty, except that the court found that he was a member of the POW Camp Staff Hong Kong between 31 January 1942 and 1 April 1945 and not between 24 January 1942 and 15 Aguust 1945 or thereabouts, and except for the words, “in the death of some”.
• D4 was guilty, except that the court found that he was a member of the POW Camp Staff Hong Kong between April 1942 and 31 August 1945 when he was transferred from POW Camp staff, but continued to reside at SHAM SHUI PO POW Camp until he finally left Hong Kong at the end of October 1943 or thereabouts, and except for the words, “in the death of some”.
• D5 was guilty, except that the court found that he was a member of the POW Camp Staff Hong Kong between 1 October 1943 and 15 August 1945 or thereabouts and not between 24 January 1942 and 15 August 1945 or thereabouts an except for the words “in the deaths of some”.
2. On the second charge:
• D1 and D2 were guilty except that the Court found that the dates in respect of both these accused should be between 31 January 1942 and 26 September 1942 or thereabouts and not between 24 January 1942 and 26 September 1942 or thereabouts, and except, in respect of both these accused, for the words “in the deaths of some”.
3. On the third charge:
• D1 and D3 were guilty, except for the words “in the death of some”.
• D2 was guilty.
4. On the fourth charge:
• D1 and D2 were not guilty.
5. On the fifth charge:
• D1 and D2 were guilty, except that the Court found that these two Accused were respectively Commandant and Medical Officer of all POW Camps in Hong Kong between 31 January 1942 and 15 August 1945 or thereabouts and not between 24 January 1942 and 15 August 1935 or thereabouts.
6. On the sixth charge:
• D1 was guilty.
• D3 was not guilty.
7. On the seventh, eighth and ninth charge:
• D1 was guilty.
8. On the tenth charge:
• D1 was not guilty.
9. On the eleventh charge:
• D1 was not guilty.
1. On the first charge:
• D1 was guilty, except that the court found that he held the command of the POW Camp Staff Hong Kong between 31th January 1942 and 15th August 1945 or thereabouts.
• D2 was guilty, except that the court found that he was a member of the POW Camp Staff Hong Kong between the dates as found in the special finding as to the first accused.
• D3 was guilty, except that the court found that he was a member of the POW Camp Staff Hong Kong between 31 January 1942 and 1 April 1945 and not between 24 January 1942 and 15 Aguust 1945 or thereabouts, and except for the words, “in the death of some”.
• D4 was guilty, except that the court found that he was a member of the POW Camp Staff Hong Kong between April 1942 and 31 August 1945 when he was transferred from POW Camp staff, but continued to reside at SHAM SHUI PO POW Camp until he finally left Hong Kong at the end of October 1943 or thereabouts, and except for the words, “in the death of some”.
• D5 was guilty, except that the court found that he was a member of the POW Camp Staff Hong Kong between 1 October 1943 and 15 August 1945 or thereabouts and not between 24 January 1942 and 15 August 1945 or thereabouts an except for the words “in the deaths of some”.
2. On the second charge:
• D1 and D2 were guilty except that the Court found that the dates in respect of both these accused should be between 31 January 1942 and 26 September 1942 or thereabouts and not between 24 January 1942 and 26 September 1942 or thereabouts, and except, in respect of both these accused, for the words “in the deaths of some”.
3. On the third charge:
• D1 and D3 were guilty, except for the words “in the death of some”.
• D2 was guilty.
4. On the fourth charge:
• D1 and D2 were not guilty.
5. On the fifth charge:
• D1 and D2 were guilty, except that the Court found that these two Accused were respectively Commandant and Medical Officer of all POW Camps in Hong Kong between 31 January 1942 and 15 August 1945 or thereabouts and not between 24 January 1942 and 15 August 1935 or thereabouts.
6. On the sixth charge:
• D1 was guilty.
• D3 was not guilty.
7. On the seventh, eighth and ninth charge:
• D1 was guilty.
8. On the tenth charge:
• D1 was not guilty.
9. On the eleventh charge:
• D1 was not guilty.
Petition
The Director of Medical Services petitioned for D1. He stated that D1 could have prohibited all parcels to the POW Camps, and since he did not, he actually contributed to the welfare of the POWs held there. Therefore, the petition argued, he should be committed to life imprisonment.
D1 petitioned. He argued that:
1. He had no special knowledge about health and medical standards. All was left to D2 and the Governor-General’s Officer.
2. He did his best to take an interest in the general health of the POWs and tried to source medicines from Canton and even Japan.
3. There was been gross distortion of facts or mistakes in the prosecution witnesses’ testimony.
4. Under Prisoner of War Camp Regulations, he had to obey his commander’s order, including order on the execution of POWs.
5. He did not embezzle the Red Cross supplies for the POWs and did not allow any subordinate to do so.
D2 petitioned. He argued that:
1. The verdict was against the weight of evidence.
2. The health of the POWs rested with their own medical officer. The accused did all he could to ensure the best conditions for the POWs. He also tried to reflect the situation to the Commandant, who was himself limited by Regulations.
3. His request for a better budget to improve the situation was rejected by the “higher circles”.
4. He had no control over POW medical staff, who were responsible for the diagnosis and treatment of sick POWs which might have resulted in the harsh treatment of the POWs.
5. The number of deaths was mainly attributable to epidemics and disease caused by overcrowding, something that he had no control over.
In reviewing the case, the Judge Advocate [unidentified Brigadier, DJAG, South East Asia Land Forces, 9 May 1947] assessed that the sentences “reflect the opinion of the court regarding the degrees of guilt attributable to each accused”. The Judge Advocate recommended commuting the death sentence of D2. Although he was “undoubtedly guilty of criminal and callous neglect in the highest degree”, his offences were offences of omission rather than of commission. It was apparent that he was present (in his medical capacity) at the execution of the victims (7th Charge). “It is possible that the Court might have been influenced by this when considering sentence, even though Saito was not joined in the seventh charge”.
The Judge Advocate recommended that “except so far as you may vary the sentences awarded to Saito, the Petitions be dismissed and the proceedings confirmed”.
Note: The file contains a note from the same Judge Advocate, dated 14 July 1946, which notes that the Commander of Land Forces, Hong Kong, as Confirming Officer, had commuted the sentences of Col. Tokunaga and Capt. Saito. The Judge Advocate suggested that the Confirming Officer “was probably influenced by the petition from Dr. Selwyn Clarke”. “There was of course a wide distinction between the facts proved against Tokunaga and those proved against Saito and in my opinion there was no good reason to commute the death sentence on the former.”
D1 petitioned. He argued that:
1. He had no special knowledge about health and medical standards. All was left to D2 and the Governor-General’s Officer.
2. He did his best to take an interest in the general health of the POWs and tried to source medicines from Canton and even Japan.
3. There was been gross distortion of facts or mistakes in the prosecution witnesses’ testimony.
4. Under Prisoner of War Camp Regulations, he had to obey his commander’s order, including order on the execution of POWs.
5. He did not embezzle the Red Cross supplies for the POWs and did not allow any subordinate to do so.
D2 petitioned. He argued that:
1. The verdict was against the weight of evidence.
2. The health of the POWs rested with their own medical officer. The accused did all he could to ensure the best conditions for the POWs. He also tried to reflect the situation to the Commandant, who was himself limited by Regulations.
3. His request for a better budget to improve the situation was rejected by the “higher circles”.
4. He had no control over POW medical staff, who were responsible for the diagnosis and treatment of sick POWs which might have resulted in the harsh treatment of the POWs.
5. The number of deaths was mainly attributable to epidemics and disease caused by overcrowding, something that he had no control over.
In reviewing the case, the Judge Advocate [unidentified Brigadier, DJAG, South East Asia Land Forces, 9 May 1947] assessed that the sentences “reflect the opinion of the court regarding the degrees of guilt attributable to each accused”. The Judge Advocate recommended commuting the death sentence of D2. Although he was “undoubtedly guilty of criminal and callous neglect in the highest degree”, his offences were offences of omission rather than of commission. It was apparent that he was present (in his medical capacity) at the execution of the victims (7th Charge). “It is possible that the Court might have been influenced by this when considering sentence, even though Saito was not joined in the seventh charge”.
The Judge Advocate recommended that “except so far as you may vary the sentences awarded to Saito, the Petitions be dismissed and the proceedings confirmed”.
Note: The file contains a note from the same Judge Advocate, dated 14 July 1946, which notes that the Commander of Land Forces, Hong Kong, as Confirming Officer, had commuted the sentences of Col. Tokunaga and Capt. Saito. The Judge Advocate suggested that the Confirming Officer “was probably influenced by the petition from Dr. Selwyn Clarke”. “There was of course a wide distinction between the facts proved against Tokunaga and those proved against Saito and in my opinion there was no good reason to commute the death sentence on the former.”
Sentence Imposed
D1: death by hanging, commuted to imprisonment of life;
D2: death by hanging, commuted to 20 years imprisonment
D3: 3 years imprisonment
D4: 2 years imprisonment
D5: 1 year imprisonment
D2: death by hanging, commuted to 20 years imprisonment
D3: 3 years imprisonment
D4: 2 years imprisonment
D5: 1 year imprisonment
Keywords
Hong Kong; Imperial Japanese Army; Civilians; Prisoners of War; Prisoner of War Camps; Medical or related personnel; Sick or wounded; "together concerned in"; Committed; Permitted; Condoned; Torture; Cruel Inhumane or Degrading Treatment; Beatings; Unlawful Killing; Poor conditions of detention; Failure to provide adequate food and/or care; Failure to provide adequate medical care; Stealing; Red Cross parcels; Attempted escape; Discipline of Prisoners of War; Arbitrary or summary punishment; Forced labour; Dangerous work; ; Deaths from natural causes; Superior Orders; Scope of responsibilities; War Crimes; Violations of laws and customs of war; Prisoner of War Camp Regulations
Remarks
1 lawyer represented 5 Co-Accused.