WO235/1107
Dublin Core
Title
WO235/1107
Description
First Charge: Committing a War Crime
“in that he at Hong Kong, between the 17th and 31st December 1941, as Commander of the 38 Infantry Unit of the 38 Division, was, in Violation of the Laws and Usages of War, concerned in the killing and ill-treatment of Allied POWs. and Surrendered Personnel by the members of Units under his Command.”
Second Charge: Committing a War Crime
“in that he at Hong Kong, between the 17th and 31st December 1941, as Commander of the 38 Infantry Unit of the 38 Division, was, in Violation of the Laws and Usages of War, concerned in the killing and ill-treatment by Members of Units under his Command of wounded and sick Members of Allied Forces that had fallen in their power.”
Third Charge: Committing a War Crime
“in that he at Hong Kong, between the 17th and 31st December 1941, as Commander of the 38 Infantry Unit of the 38 Division, was, in Violation of the Laws and Usages of War, concerned in the killing and ill-treatment by Members of Units under his Command of Allied Personnel engaged exclusively in the collection, transport and treatment of the wounded and sick and in the administration of medical formations and establishments.”
Fourth Charge: Committing a War Crime
“in that he at Hong Kong, between the 17th and 31st December 1941, as Commander of the 38 Infantry Unit of the 38 Division, was, in Violation of the Laws and Usages of War, concerned in the killing and ill-treatment by Members of Units under his Command of civilian residents of Hong Kong.”
“in that he at Hong Kong, between the 17th and 31st December 1941, as Commander of the 38 Infantry Unit of the 38 Division, was, in Violation of the Laws and Usages of War, concerned in the killing and ill-treatment of Allied POWs. and Surrendered Personnel by the members of Units under his Command.”
Second Charge: Committing a War Crime
“in that he at Hong Kong, between the 17th and 31st December 1941, as Commander of the 38 Infantry Unit of the 38 Division, was, in Violation of the Laws and Usages of War, concerned in the killing and ill-treatment by Members of Units under his Command of wounded and sick Members of Allied Forces that had fallen in their power.”
Third Charge: Committing a War Crime
“in that he at Hong Kong, between the 17th and 31st December 1941, as Commander of the 38 Infantry Unit of the 38 Division, was, in Violation of the Laws and Usages of War, concerned in the killing and ill-treatment by Members of Units under his Command of Allied Personnel engaged exclusively in the collection, transport and treatment of the wounded and sick and in the administration of medical formations and establishments.”
Fourth Charge: Committing a War Crime
“in that he at Hong Kong, between the 17th and 31st December 1941, as Commander of the 38 Infantry Unit of the 38 Division, was, in Violation of the Laws and Usages of War, concerned in the killing and ill-treatment by Members of Units under his Command of civilian residents of Hong Kong.”
Legal Case Item Type Metadata
Case No.
WO235/1107
Accused
Lt. Gen. Ito Takeo
Court
Military Court for the Trial of War Criminals No. 7
Charge
First Charge: Committing a War Crime
“in that he at Hong Kong, between the 17th and 31st December 1941, as Commander of the 38 Infantry Unit of the 38 Division, was, in Violation of the Laws and Usages of War, concerned in the killing and ill-treatment of Allied POWs. and Surrendered Personnel by the members of Units under his Command.”
Second Charge: Committing a War Crime
“in that he at Hong Kong, between the 17th and 31st December 1941, as Commander of the 38 Infantry Unit of the 38 Division, was, in Violation of the Laws and Usages of War, concerned in the killing and ill-treatment by Members of Units under his Command of wounded and sick Members of Allied Forces that had fallen in their power.”
Third Charge: Committing a War Crime
“in that he at Hong Kong, between the 17th and 31st December 1941, as Commander of the 38 Infantry Unit of the 38 Division, was, in Violation of the Laws and Usages of War, concerned in the killing and ill-treatment by Members of Units under his Command of Allied Personnel engaged exclusively in the collection, transport and treatment of the wounded and sick and in the administration of medical formations and establishments.”
Fourth Charge: Committing a War Crime
“in that he at Hong Kong, between the 17th and 31st December 1941, as Commander of the 38 Infantry Unit of the 38 Division, was, in Violation of the Laws and Usages of War, concerned in the killing and ill-treatment by Members of Units under his Command of civilian residents of Hong Kong.”
“in that he at Hong Kong, between the 17th and 31st December 1941, as Commander of the 38 Infantry Unit of the 38 Division, was, in Violation of the Laws and Usages of War, concerned in the killing and ill-treatment of Allied POWs. and Surrendered Personnel by the members of Units under his Command.”
Second Charge: Committing a War Crime
“in that he at Hong Kong, between the 17th and 31st December 1941, as Commander of the 38 Infantry Unit of the 38 Division, was, in Violation of the Laws and Usages of War, concerned in the killing and ill-treatment by Members of Units under his Command of wounded and sick Members of Allied Forces that had fallen in their power.”
Third Charge: Committing a War Crime
“in that he at Hong Kong, between the 17th and 31st December 1941, as Commander of the 38 Infantry Unit of the 38 Division, was, in Violation of the Laws and Usages of War, concerned in the killing and ill-treatment by Members of Units under his Command of Allied Personnel engaged exclusively in the collection, transport and treatment of the wounded and sick and in the administration of medical formations and establishments.”
Fourth Charge: Committing a War Crime
“in that he at Hong Kong, between the 17th and 31st December 1941, as Commander of the 38 Infantry Unit of the 38 Division, was, in Violation of the Laws and Usages of War, concerned in the killing and ill-treatment by Members of Units under his Command of civilian residents of Hong Kong.”
Background
This case concerned the Japanese invasion, leading to the occupation of Hong Kong, in December 1941.
The Accused was in command of the Infantry Group (Hohei Dan) of the 38th Division of the Japanese Army. He took part in the attack on and capture of Hong Kong. The attack was scheduled to begin on the night of 18/19 December 1941.
On the night of 18 December 1941, three Regiments of the Japanese Army attacked Hong Kong Island – the Tanaka Butai (Regiment) on the right landing at Sau Ki Wan; the Doi Butai (Regiment) in the centre landing at Tai Koo Docks and the Shoji Butai (Regiment) on the left landing at North Point.
The Accused was in command of the Infantry Group (Hohei Dan) of the 38th Division of the Japanese Army. He took part in the attack on and capture of Hong Kong. The attack was scheduled to begin on the night of 18/19 December 1941.
On the night of 18 December 1941, three Regiments of the Japanese Army attacked Hong Kong Island – the Tanaka Butai (Regiment) on the right landing at Sau Ki Wan; the Doi Butai (Regiment) in the centre landing at Tai Koo Docks and the Shoji Butai (Regiment) on the left landing at North Point.
Allegations
The Prosecution alleged that a number of atrocities were committed by Japanese troops in this period. These atrocities included the shooting and bayoneting to death of captured Allied troops and surrendered personnel, the unlawful killing of sick and wounded members of the Allied Forces, the unlawful killing of medical personnel, and the murder and rape of nurses as well as civilians (both British and Chinese). More specifically, the allegations were:
1. During the attack on Repulse Bay, Japanese troops committed various atrocities. When they took Sai Wan Hill, they captured a number of prisoners. They were placed in a concrete pill-box for several hours. They were called out and were bayoneted and their bodies tossed over a stone embankment. Two survived and gave evidence in person.
2. When the Japanese took the Salesian Mission, which was occupied by medical personnel, both military and civilians were made prisoners. Major Banfill, by his affidavit, claimed that it was done by an order. He also said that he saw them ''butcher'' wounded British officers and soldiers.
3. There was also wanton killing of two European residents at a reservoir pumping station.
4. At St. Stephen's College in Stanley, which was used as an ancillary hospital, the troops allegedly raped and murdered nurses, and brutally killed wounded soldiers.
5. Rape of nurses also occurred at the Jockey Club on the Race Course, where an emergency hospital was situated.
The Prosecution attempted to prove that the Accused was commanding the 38th Infantry Unit, consisting of three regiments, who were responsible for the atrocities. In particular, the Prosecution contended that Major Gen (then Col) Tanaka was at the time operating under the Accused’s command and hence that the Accused bore responsibility for the atrocities committed by Tanaka’s troops, especially in the Repulse Bay area.
The Prosecution referred to (1) the Manual of Military Law, Chapter XIV(a), Paragraph 56(c), (2) the Red Cross Convention, Chapter 1, Article 2, and (3) the Hague Convention, Section 1, Chapter 1, Article 1, Condition 1. The three sources of law provided the rights of Prisoners of War (‘POWs’) that the Japanese troops breached.
Finally, the Prosecution asked the Court “to take cognisance of the Law on the responsibility of a commander in the Field”, that he must take measures as are within his power to ensure inhuman acts do not occur.
1. During the attack on Repulse Bay, Japanese troops committed various atrocities. When they took Sai Wan Hill, they captured a number of prisoners. They were placed in a concrete pill-box for several hours. They were called out and were bayoneted and their bodies tossed over a stone embankment. Two survived and gave evidence in person.
2. When the Japanese took the Salesian Mission, which was occupied by medical personnel, both military and civilians were made prisoners. Major Banfill, by his affidavit, claimed that it was done by an order. He also said that he saw them ''butcher'' wounded British officers and soldiers.
3. There was also wanton killing of two European residents at a reservoir pumping station.
4. At St. Stephen's College in Stanley, which was used as an ancillary hospital, the troops allegedly raped and murdered nurses, and brutally killed wounded soldiers.
5. Rape of nurses also occurred at the Jockey Club on the Race Course, where an emergency hospital was situated.
The Prosecution attempted to prove that the Accused was commanding the 38th Infantry Unit, consisting of three regiments, who were responsible for the atrocities. In particular, the Prosecution contended that Major Gen (then Col) Tanaka was at the time operating under the Accused’s command and hence that the Accused bore responsibility for the atrocities committed by Tanaka’s troops, especially in the Repulse Bay area.
The Prosecution referred to (1) the Manual of Military Law, Chapter XIV(a), Paragraph 56(c), (2) the Red Cross Convention, Chapter 1, Article 2, and (3) the Hague Convention, Section 1, Chapter 1, Article 1, Condition 1. The three sources of law provided the rights of Prisoners of War (‘POWs’) that the Japanese troops breached.
Finally, the Prosecution asked the Court “to take cognisance of the Law on the responsibility of a commander in the Field”, that he must take measures as are within his power to ensure inhuman acts do not occur.
Defence
The Accused admitted that before the Hong Kong landings, he was in command of the 38thh Infantry Unit. But, he contended that as soon as the operations against the island began, there was a redistribution of forces. He claimed that he then became the commander of a body known as the Right Flank Force, while Tanaka commanded a parallel force known as the Left Flank Force. Both units were under the command of the G.O.C. 38th Division.
Furthermore, during the trial, the Accused testified that his forces engaged in decisive battle on the high hills. No troops of the Right Flank Force were to be led into the town area. He issued a strict prohibition against entering into civilian residences. He said this was because, unlike other wars on the Chinese mainland, the residents of Hong Kong had not evacuated yet. He wanted to minimize the damages and casualties. He was ''firmly convinced'' that the military discipline in his force was strictly maintained. He accepted that he bore responsibility for his subordinates’ actions, but maintained that they did not, in fact, commit any misconduct.
Furthermore, during the trial, the Accused testified that his forces engaged in decisive battle on the high hills. No troops of the Right Flank Force were to be led into the town area. He issued a strict prohibition against entering into civilian residences. He said this was because, unlike other wars on the Chinese mainland, the residents of Hong Kong had not evacuated yet. He wanted to minimize the damages and casualties. He was ''firmly convinced'' that the military discipline in his force was strictly maintained. He accepted that he bore responsibility for his subordinates’ actions, but maintained that they did not, in fact, commit any misconduct.
Prosecutor
Major M.I. Ormsby (West Yorkshire Regiment (The Prince of Wales’ Own), DAJAG, FARELF)
Assistant Prosecutor: Major J.T.N. Cross (Royal Artillery, DAJAG, War Crimes Legal Section, G.H.Q. FARELF).
Assistant Prosecutor: Major J.T.N. Cross (Royal Artillery, DAJAG, War Crimes Legal Section, G.H.Q. FARELF).
Defence Counsel
Mr Kunihiro Minoru (Lawyer of the Tokyo Bar Association)
Judges
President: Lt-Col. P. Warwick (R.A.S.C. Barrister-at-law)
Members: Major. V.E. Howse (King’s Own Royal Regiment), Capt. J. Benyon (Royal Engineers)
Members: Major. V.E. Howse (King’s Own Royal Regiment), Capt. J. Benyon (Royal Engineers)
Advisory Officer
2nd/Lt. G.L. Falkoff (The Buffs)
Prosecution Witnesses
Cheung Siu Ling (Teacher)
Capt. E.C. Watson (Captain)
Chan Yan Kwong (Merchant)
F.R. Zimmern (Stockbroker)
Henri Boesveld (Merchant)
Edward Charles Fincher (Falconer, member of Hong Kong Volunteer Defence Corps)
James Risley Winyard (Technical Staff (aircraft), member of Hong Kong Volunteer Defence Corps)
J.P. White (Costing Clerk, member of Hong Kong Volunteer Defence Corps)
Mrs. B. Ward (Unknown)
Yim Hung (?Boy?)
Lam Sam Yin (Cook)
Mrs. E.A. Fidoe (Nursing sister)
Miss Amy Williams (Matron)
S.D. Begg (Commercial Executive)
Chan Sai So (?Boy?)
Leung Wing Cho (Pumping Station Worker)
Chan Wei Fong (Unknown)
Col. L.T. Ride (Commandant of Hong Kong Volunteer Defence Corps)
J.M. Baud (Merchant)
Maj. General Tanaka Ryusaburu (Japanese Major-General)
Lee Yeuk Lan (Unknown)
Miss Lois Fearon (Unknown)
Maj. M.I. Ormsby (Unknown)
Defence Witnesses
Lt. Gen. Ito Takeo (Accused)
Col. Matsumoto Shoji (Japanese Colonel)
Sgt. Maj. Ishiyama Kakui (Japanese Sergeant-Major)
Tosaka Susumi (Staff officer of the 38th Division)
Lt-Gen. Higuchi Keishichiro (Japanese Lieutenant-General)
Trial Dates
1948-01-19
1948-01-20
1948-01-21
1948-01-22
1948-01-23
1948-01-24
1948-01-26
1948-01-27
1948-01-28
1948-01-29
1948-01-30
1948-02-06
Judgement Date
1948-02-06
Judgement
First and Second Charges: Guilty;
Third and Fourth Charges: Not Guilty.
Third and Fourth Charges: Not Guilty.
Petition
The Accused submitted a Petition on 19 February 1948, stressing that the killing and ill-treatment were not proved. The Accused did not deny his responsibility for supervising his subordinates, but he challenged the claim that they committed any crimes. In the light of the fundamental principle concerning the presumption of innocence, he argued, he should have been acquitted.
In reviewing the case, the Judge Advocate [unidentified Colonel, DJAG, Far East Land Forces, 9 April 1948] observed that the Petition just repeated what was said at trial, and issues that had been considered by the Court.
The Judge Advocate noted the “wealth of evidence relating to atrocities committed by Japanese troops against all the classes of persons mentioned in the charges during the battle for Hong Kong.”
On the issue of the redistribution of Japanese forces for the operation against Hong Kong Island - the Defence claim (supported by witnesses) was that the troops responsible were actually under the direct control of the G.O.C. – the Judge Advocate assessed that: “Although it seems highly probable that this story was concocted by the Japanese witnesses for the purpose of this trial, there was little or no evidence to rebut it and at the same time there was evidence from other prosecution witnesses that Tanaka personally appeared and made a speech in the Repulse Bay area (at Eucliffe), the inference being that he was directly responsible for what was going on there or at least for failing to stop it.”
“In finding the accused guilty only on the first two charges and in awarding a sentence of imprisonment for only 12 years (as against 20 years awarded at an earlier trial to Tanaka for his part in similar activities) the Court evidently came to the conclusion that Ito’s responsibility was proved only in relation to atrocities against allied troops in the right flank sector.”
“The findings were undoubtedly in accordance with the evidence which the Court had before them and in the circumstances the sentence appears to be appropriate.”
The Judge Advocate advised that the Petition should be dismissed and the proceedings should be confirmed.
In reviewing the case, the Judge Advocate [unidentified Colonel, DJAG, Far East Land Forces, 9 April 1948] observed that the Petition just repeated what was said at trial, and issues that had been considered by the Court.
The Judge Advocate noted the “wealth of evidence relating to atrocities committed by Japanese troops against all the classes of persons mentioned in the charges during the battle for Hong Kong.”
On the issue of the redistribution of Japanese forces for the operation against Hong Kong Island - the Defence claim (supported by witnesses) was that the troops responsible were actually under the direct control of the G.O.C. – the Judge Advocate assessed that: “Although it seems highly probable that this story was concocted by the Japanese witnesses for the purpose of this trial, there was little or no evidence to rebut it and at the same time there was evidence from other prosecution witnesses that Tanaka personally appeared and made a speech in the Repulse Bay area (at Eucliffe), the inference being that he was directly responsible for what was going on there or at least for failing to stop it.”
“In finding the accused guilty only on the first two charges and in awarding a sentence of imprisonment for only 12 years (as against 20 years awarded at an earlier trial to Tanaka for his part in similar activities) the Court evidently came to the conclusion that Ito’s responsibility was proved only in relation to atrocities against allied troops in the right flank sector.”
“The findings were undoubtedly in accordance with the evidence which the Court had before them and in the circumstances the sentence appears to be appropriate.”
The Judge Advocate advised that the Petition should be dismissed and the proceedings should be confirmed.
Sentence Imposed
Imprisonment of 12 years
Keywords
Battle for Hong Kong; 38th Infantry Unit; Imperial Japanese Army; Hong Kong; Civilians; Prisoners of War; Medical or related personnel; Medical formations and establishments; "concerned in"; Surrender; Prisoners of War; Sick or Wounded; Unlawful Killing; Sexual Violence; Torture; Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment; Military Command Responsibility; War Crimes; Violations of laws and customs of war;
Manual of Military Law; Red Cross Convention; Hague Regulations/Rules 1907
Manual of Military Law; Red Cross Convention; Hague Regulations/Rules 1907
Remarks
Refer to the trials of Major General Tanaka Ryosaburo (Case No. WO/235/1030) and Major General Shoji Toshishige (Case No. WO/235/1015).
Files
Collection
Citation
“WO235/1107,” Hong Kong's War Crimes Trials Collection, accessed April 20, 2024, https://hkwctc.lib.hku.hk/items/show/82.
Geolocation
Hello World, hello