WO235/954
Dublin Core
Title
WO235/954
Description
First Charge (against each Accused)
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, in that they, at or near KOKUTSU CAMP, FORMOSA, between 15th May, 1845 and 5th September, 1945 whilst members of the Camp Staff were contrary to the laws and usages of war, together concerned in the ill-treatment of Prisoners-of-War in their custody, causing suffering to the said Prisoners-of-War”.
Second Charge (against D1, D2 and D3)
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, in that they, at KINKASEKI CAMP, FORMOSA, between 1st January, 1944 and 16th June 1945, were contrary to the laws and usages of war, together concerned in the ill-treatment of Prisoners-of-War in their custody causing suffering to the said Prisoners-of-War.
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, in that they, at or near KOKUTSU CAMP, FORMOSA, between 15th May, 1845 and 5th September, 1945 whilst members of the Camp Staff were contrary to the laws and usages of war, together concerned in the ill-treatment of Prisoners-of-War in their custody, causing suffering to the said Prisoners-of-War”.
Second Charge (against D1, D2 and D3)
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, in that they, at KINKASEKI CAMP, FORMOSA, between 1st January, 1944 and 16th June 1945, were contrary to the laws and usages of war, together concerned in the ill-treatment of Prisoners-of-War in their custody causing suffering to the said Prisoners-of-War.
Legal Case Item Type Metadata
Case No.
WO235/954
Accused
Lt. Suzuki Nebuo (D1)
Lt. Tamara Iwao (D2)
S/M Furuo Tatsuo (D3)
Sgt Nakajima Miteshi (D4)
Court
Military Court for the Trial of War Criminals No. 7
Charge
First Charge (against each Accused)
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, in that they, at or near KOKUTSU CAMP, FORMOSA, between 15th May, 1845 and 5th September, 1945 whilst members of the Camp Staff were contrary to the laws and usages of war, together concerned in the ill-treatment of Prisoners-of-War in their custody, causing suffering to the said Prisoners-of-War”.
Second Charge (against D1, D2 and D3)
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, in that they, at KINKASEKI CAMP, FORMOSA, between 1st January, 1944 and 16th June 1945, were contrary to the laws and usages of war, together concerned in the ill-treatment of Prisoners-of-War in their custody causing suffering to the said Prisoners-of-War.
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, in that they, at or near KOKUTSU CAMP, FORMOSA, between 15th May, 1845 and 5th September, 1945 whilst members of the Camp Staff were contrary to the laws and usages of war, together concerned in the ill-treatment of Prisoners-of-War in their custody, causing suffering to the said Prisoners-of-War”.
Second Charge (against D1, D2 and D3)
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, in that they, at KINKASEKI CAMP, FORMOSA, between 1st January, 1944 and 16th June 1945, were contrary to the laws and usages of war, together concerned in the ill-treatment of Prisoners-of-War in their custody causing suffering to the said Prisoners-of-War.
Background
The Accused were members of the staff of two Japanese Prisoners of War (‘POW’) Camps in Formosa (Taiwan) - the Kinkaseki Camp and the Kokutsu Camp.
The Kinkaseki Camp was infamous because the POWs in that camp were made to work in a nearby mine (The Nippon Kogyo Mine) in near-primitive conditions with high temperatures (as high as 95F), falling rocks and deep pools etc. POWs worked without proper equipment, food supply and water. There were allegations that sick POWs were forced to work in the mine, regardless of their health.
This case concerned life at the Kokutsu and Kinkaseki camps. The Prosecution attempted to argue that there was a policy of sustained cruelty, calculated to make a misery of the lives of the POWs in the camps.
The Kinkaseki Camp was infamous because the POWs in that camp were made to work in a nearby mine (The Nippon Kogyo Mine) in near-primitive conditions with high temperatures (as high as 95F), falling rocks and deep pools etc. POWs worked without proper equipment, food supply and water. There were allegations that sick POWs were forced to work in the mine, regardless of their health.
This case concerned life at the Kokutsu and Kinkaseki camps. The Prosecution attempted to argue that there was a policy of sustained cruelty, calculated to make a misery of the lives of the POWs in the camps.
Allegations
On the first charge (The Kokutsu Camp)
Regarding D1, it was alleged that he regularly mistreated the POWs by beating them. As far as particular incidents are concerned, he was alleged to have tied up POWs who were caught stealing sugar for a long time (allegedly 3 days under the sun, rain and insects, some were tied up after they were injured and without receiving any treatment) (e.g. Daly was left there with a dislocated jaw). The Accused was also alleged to have forced injured POWs to march in “pitiful conditions” for long distances during the evacuation of the Camp.
D2 was alleged, as the officer in charge of work at the camp, to have forced the POWs to work “like slaves”. They were beaten to force them to work.
D3 supervised a march of the POWs during the evacuation of the Camp. POWs marched through a dangerous route. The Accused permitted and took part in kicking and beating the POWs. He was also alleged to have forced the POWs to work long hours without food and rest and to have beaten the POWs.
D4 was alleged to be responsible for regular beatings (for reason such as that they were “idle”), and abusing the POWs by increasing the work quota everyday.
On the Second Charge (The Kinkaseki Camp)
Regarding D1, it was alleged that he, as the Orderly Officer, slapped, beat the prisoners and forced them to work in gruelling conditions in the mine near the Kinkaseki camp.
Regarding D2, it was also alleged that he, as the Orderly Officer, was present during and supervised the interrogation of a POW named Daly. Daly was “savagely handled” after suffering some ill-treatment from D2.
Regarding D3, it was alleged that he was “notoriously brutal” to the POWs (mistreating them by kicking and beating them) and took an active part in forcing the ill to work in the mine. It was alleged that he mistreated a POW named Barrett, who was found stealing a quantity of carbide, by beating him. He also burned Barrett by forcing him under the tap so that water and carbide combined and chemical reaction ensued.
Regarding D1, it was alleged that he regularly mistreated the POWs by beating them. As far as particular incidents are concerned, he was alleged to have tied up POWs who were caught stealing sugar for a long time (allegedly 3 days under the sun, rain and insects, some were tied up after they were injured and without receiving any treatment) (e.g. Daly was left there with a dislocated jaw). The Accused was also alleged to have forced injured POWs to march in “pitiful conditions” for long distances during the evacuation of the Camp.
D2 was alleged, as the officer in charge of work at the camp, to have forced the POWs to work “like slaves”. They were beaten to force them to work.
D3 supervised a march of the POWs during the evacuation of the Camp. POWs marched through a dangerous route. The Accused permitted and took part in kicking and beating the POWs. He was also alleged to have forced the POWs to work long hours without food and rest and to have beaten the POWs.
D4 was alleged to be responsible for regular beatings (for reason such as that they were “idle”), and abusing the POWs by increasing the work quota everyday.
On the Second Charge (The Kinkaseki Camp)
Regarding D1, it was alleged that he, as the Orderly Officer, slapped, beat the prisoners and forced them to work in gruelling conditions in the mine near the Kinkaseki camp.
Regarding D2, it was also alleged that he, as the Orderly Officer, was present during and supervised the interrogation of a POW named Daly. Daly was “savagely handled” after suffering some ill-treatment from D2.
Regarding D3, it was alleged that he was “notoriously brutal” to the POWs (mistreating them by kicking and beating them) and took an active part in forcing the ill to work in the mine. It was alleged that he mistreated a POW named Barrett, who was found stealing a quantity of carbide, by beating him. He also burned Barrett by forcing him under the tap so that water and carbide combined and chemical reaction ensued.
Defence
Preliminary Observation: The ultra vires argument
First of all, the defence argued that the Accused were all asked to do things that were outside of their power or beyond their authority. They were also asked to do things that were outside their scope of ability. The Defence also noted the “very peculiar nature of the obedience of the subordinates in the Japanese Army to the orders of their superiors”.
D1
Regarding D1, the Defence relied on his testimony and that of Capt Immamura (the superior of D1). They said that the plan to send the POWs to work in the mine came from the Headquarters of the Formosa Army with the approval of the Japanese Government. It was also argued that insofar as foodstuffs were concerned, the rations were the same for Japanese officials and the POWs, who were, in fact, entitled to extra food from the Nippon Mining Company. It was also said that “no one went into the mine bare-footed”.
Additionally, the Defence argued that there was no Japanese Medical Officer in Kinkaseki. There were only a few orderlies, who were only to do liaison work and to ensure medical supplies upon requests.
It was argued that the decision to send POWs to work lay “exclusively” with Medical Officers and Medical Orderlies who were with the POWs (eg. Lt. Col. Crossley). As such, the Japanese orderlies were not to be held responsible for any relevant decisions. Some of the sick volunteered to work in order to get a regular ration (note: a sick POW would get a smaller ration).
The Defence denied the alleged incident of tying up the POWs under the sun and the allegation that they were detained in a cell. In the case of Daly, it was said that D1 was told that Daly “had the habit of dislocating his jaw” and therefore had bandages on his cheek. D1 had no knowledge of any injury.
Concerning the march after the evacuation of the camp, D1 denied responsibility by arguing, inter alia, that the POWs voluntarily participated in the march since they wanted to leave. No promise was given that boats would be provided to carry the sick. In any case, the sick could be treated in the nearby Japanese Military Hospital in Matsuyama.
D2
The Defence argued mainly along the line that insufficient evidence was provided. In relation to Daly, the Defence relied on some contradictory evidence presented by PW Fujiwara to disprove the alleged incident. For other incidents, the Defence argued that there was insufficient evidence to show that D2 was actually present at the scene, let alone that he ordered his subordinate to perpetrate the alleged crime.
D3
On the point of sending the sick to work, the Defence argued Superior Orders. It was claimed that “the accused could do nothing in this connection but discharge his duties as set out by his superior”, meaning that he had no discretion at all.
On the issue of ill-treating Barrett, D3 denied the incident. He said that instead, the carbide was confiscated and the victim was let go. It was also argued that “it is quite incomprehensible to any person of commonsense that BARRETT should have allowed the accused to do as he liked and have done nothing to protect himself”.
In relation to other incidents mentioned, D3 flatly denied what happened and mainly argued that he had no connection whatsoever to the alleged incidents. In one case, he admitted that he hit the POW, but argued that it was an accident.
D4
The defence here argued that D4 had no connection with the guards that beat the POWs, since he was with the other party who worked in entirely different places. He did not order any beating nor did he know about the beating until later on when he heard of it. There was no relationship between him and the incidents alleged.
First of all, the defence argued that the Accused were all asked to do things that were outside of their power or beyond their authority. They were also asked to do things that were outside their scope of ability. The Defence also noted the “very peculiar nature of the obedience of the subordinates in the Japanese Army to the orders of their superiors”.
D1
Regarding D1, the Defence relied on his testimony and that of Capt Immamura (the superior of D1). They said that the plan to send the POWs to work in the mine came from the Headquarters of the Formosa Army with the approval of the Japanese Government. It was also argued that insofar as foodstuffs were concerned, the rations were the same for Japanese officials and the POWs, who were, in fact, entitled to extra food from the Nippon Mining Company. It was also said that “no one went into the mine bare-footed”.
Additionally, the Defence argued that there was no Japanese Medical Officer in Kinkaseki. There were only a few orderlies, who were only to do liaison work and to ensure medical supplies upon requests.
It was argued that the decision to send POWs to work lay “exclusively” with Medical Officers and Medical Orderlies who were with the POWs (eg. Lt. Col. Crossley). As such, the Japanese orderlies were not to be held responsible for any relevant decisions. Some of the sick volunteered to work in order to get a regular ration (note: a sick POW would get a smaller ration).
The Defence denied the alleged incident of tying up the POWs under the sun and the allegation that they were detained in a cell. In the case of Daly, it was said that D1 was told that Daly “had the habit of dislocating his jaw” and therefore had bandages on his cheek. D1 had no knowledge of any injury.
Concerning the march after the evacuation of the camp, D1 denied responsibility by arguing, inter alia, that the POWs voluntarily participated in the march since they wanted to leave. No promise was given that boats would be provided to carry the sick. In any case, the sick could be treated in the nearby Japanese Military Hospital in Matsuyama.
D2
The Defence argued mainly along the line that insufficient evidence was provided. In relation to Daly, the Defence relied on some contradictory evidence presented by PW Fujiwara to disprove the alleged incident. For other incidents, the Defence argued that there was insufficient evidence to show that D2 was actually present at the scene, let alone that he ordered his subordinate to perpetrate the alleged crime.
D3
On the point of sending the sick to work, the Defence argued Superior Orders. It was claimed that “the accused could do nothing in this connection but discharge his duties as set out by his superior”, meaning that he had no discretion at all.
On the issue of ill-treating Barrett, D3 denied the incident. He said that instead, the carbide was confiscated and the victim was let go. It was also argued that “it is quite incomprehensible to any person of commonsense that BARRETT should have allowed the accused to do as he liked and have done nothing to protect himself”.
In relation to other incidents mentioned, D3 flatly denied what happened and mainly argued that he had no connection whatsoever to the alleged incidents. In one case, he admitted that he hit the POW, but argued that it was an accident.
D4
The defence here argued that D4 had no connection with the guards that beat the POWs, since he was with the other party who worked in entirely different places. He did not order any beating nor did he know about the beating until later on when he heard of it. There was no relationship between him and the incidents alleged.
Prosecutor
Major D.G. McGregor (Black Watch, Solicitor)
Defence Counsel
Takano Junjiro (Avocate, Supreme Court Tokyo)
Judges
President: Lt. Col. J.C. Stewart (Dept. of JAG, India, Solicitor)
Members: Major M.I. Ormsby (West Yorks Regiment); Capt R.B.R. Forely, (K.R.R.C.)
Members: Major M.I. Ormsby (West Yorks Regiment); Capt R.B.R. Forely, (K.R.R.C.)
Advisory Officer
Lt.Whitehorn (J.M. Int. Corps)
Prosecution Witnesses
Kanagaki Yoshio (Unknown)
Fujiwara Kiyotaka (Interpreter, Kinkaseki POW Camp)
Major J.T.N. Cross (Major, Royal Artillery)
W.O. Edwards (Warrant Officer, 1st Class, British Army)
Defence Witnesses
Lt. Suzuki Nobuo (Accused, Army Lieutenant)
Lt. Tahara Iwao (Accused, Army Lieutenant)
Sgt/Major Furuo Tatsuo (Accused, Army Sergeant Major.)
Sgt. Nakajima Mitoshi (Accused, Army Sergeant)
Capt. Imamura Yayohachi (Captain, Camp Commandant, Kinkaseki POW Camp)
Tamaki Koji (Army Lieutenant, Japanese Army)
Kuwabara Hiroshi (Army Lieutenant, Adjutant attached to POW H.Q. Formosa)
Ueno Mitsuo (Medical Corporal, No. 1 (Kinkaseki) POW Camp, Formosa)
Kawano Mitsutoshi (Army Sergeant, No. 1 (Kinkaseki) POW Camp, Formosa)
Yamaguchi Kiyochige (Medical First Class Private, Daichoku Camp)
Trial Dates
1946-11-21
1946-11-22
1946-11-23
1946-11-25
1946-11-26
1946-11-27
1946-12-02
Judgement Date
1946-12-02
Judgement Confirmation Date
1947-02-08
Judgement Promulgation Date
1947-02-10
Judgement
Held – All guilty as charged.
Petition
The accused petitioned:
1. the verdict was against the weight of evidence;
2. the sentences were unduly severe.
On 30 January 1946, the Judge Advocate [unidentified Brigadier, DJAG, South East Asia Land Forces] advised that the Petitions contained nothing new. He noted the sentences could be considered to be unduly severe in view of the fact that the Prosecution expressly excluded from their case against these Accused any question of the responsiblity for the employment of POW in the copper mines at the Kinkaseki and the working conditions there, which appear to have been the principal cases of suffering to the POWs therein. He suggested that the Commander of Land Forces Hong Kong may wish to consider remission, if he found the sentences unduly severe: “if so, it is open to you to make such remissions of the sentences as you may consider just.”
1. the verdict was against the weight of evidence;
2. the sentences were unduly severe.
On 30 January 1946, the Judge Advocate [unidentified Brigadier, DJAG, South East Asia Land Forces] advised that the Petitions contained nothing new. He noted the sentences could be considered to be unduly severe in view of the fact that the Prosecution expressly excluded from their case against these Accused any question of the responsiblity for the employment of POW in the copper mines at the Kinkaseki and the working conditions there, which appear to have been the principal cases of suffering to the POWs therein. He suggested that the Commander of Land Forces Hong Kong may wish to consider remission, if he found the sentences unduly severe: “if so, it is open to you to make such remissions of the sentences as you may consider just.”
Sentence Imposed
D1: 7 years imprisonment;
D2: 7 years imprisonment;
D3: 10 years imprisonment;
D4: 3 years imprisonment
D2: 7 years imprisonment;
D3: 10 years imprisonment;
D4: 3 years imprisonment
Keywords
Formosa; Imperial Japanese Army; Prisoners of War; Prisoner of War Camp; "together concerned in"; Committed; Forced labour; Poor conditions of detention; Unlawful killing; Torture; Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment; Arbitrary or summary punishment; Marching; Forced evacuation or deportation; Poor working conditions; Failure to provide adequate food and/or care; Forced evacuation or displacement;
Policy; Scope of responsibilities; Provocation; Orders; Superior Orders; Hierarchy; War Crimes; Violations of the laws and customs of war; Provocation Discipline of Prisoners of War
Policy; Scope of responsibilities; Provocation; Orders; Superior Orders; Hierarchy; War Crimes; Violations of the laws and customs of war; Provocation Discipline of Prisoners of War
Remarks
1 defence lawyer for 4 Co-Accused.
Only 4 Prosecution witnesses, none of them ex-POWs from Kokutsu or Kinkaseki.
There are several linked cases, most notably Case No. WO/235/1028, WO/235/905, WO/235/954, WO/235/1036.
Only 4 Prosecution witnesses, none of them ex-POWs from Kokutsu or Kinkaseki.
There are several linked cases, most notably Case No. WO/235/1028, WO/235/905, WO/235/954, WO/235/1036.
Files
Collection
Citation
“WO235/954,” Hong Kong's War Crimes Trials Collection, accessed April 27, 2024, https://hkwctc.lib.hku.hk/items/show/56.
Geolocation
Hello World, hello