To access the complete case file, click here
Case No.
WO235/894
Accused
Sgt. Major Matsunobu Shigeru
Court
Military Court for the Trial of War Criminals No. 7
Charge
Committing a War Crime
‘in that he at Hong Kong between 7th December 1944 and 18th August 1945 being in the service of the occupying power in violation of the laws and usages of war concerned in the ill treatment of civilian residents of Hong Kong while in custody of the Japanese Gendarmerie causing them physical suffering and particularly to Mr. AXEL OLSSON, CHENG TSUUNG HAN, NA YIN CHE, CHE HOK YING, CHAN LUK CHAU, CHIU HOK CHEUK, KWOK KWOK YIN and LING CE KEING, YUEN FO TO, some of the said residents.”
‘in that he at Hong Kong between 7th December 1944 and 18th August 1945 being in the service of the occupying power in violation of the laws and usages of war concerned in the ill treatment of civilian residents of Hong Kong while in custody of the Japanese Gendarmerie causing them physical suffering and particularly to Mr. AXEL OLSSON, CHENG TSUUNG HAN, NA YIN CHE, CHE HOK YING, CHAN LUK CHAU, CHIU HOK CHEUK, KWOK KWOK YIN and LING CE KEING, YUEN FO TO, some of the said residents.”
Background
The Accused was a non-commissioned officer of the Japanese Gendarmerie. On 15 May 1944, he was transferred from Korea to the Special Intelligence Department of the Eastern District Gendarmerie in Hong Kong. From 1 March 1945, he was posted to Stanley Gendarme Station as Commanding Officer.
The case concerns ill-treatment of civilians. According to the Judge Advocate [Lt. Col. D.A.Wright, AJAG, Land Forces, 19 August 1946], nine civilians were specifically mentioned but "it was clear from the phrasing in the particulars of the charge that it was not restricted to these nine named persons, and the Prosecution, as they were entitled to do, led evidence relating to the alleged ill-treatment of two other residents, Suen Chuen-wo and Hui Yee-dai".
The case concerns ill-treatment of civilians. According to the Judge Advocate [Lt. Col. D.A.Wright, AJAG, Land Forces, 19 August 1946], nine civilians were specifically mentioned but "it was clear from the phrasing in the particulars of the charge that it was not restricted to these nine named persons, and the Prosecution, as they were entitled to do, led evidence relating to the alleged ill-treatment of two other residents, Suen Chuen-wo and Hui Yee-dai".
Allegations
The Prosecution sought to establish that the Accused was responsible for the infliction of ill-treatment on certain civilians, which included beating, suspension by thumbs or wrists, and water torture. All these happened in Stanley, Wong Nei Chung, at the Supreme Court, Central Police Station and No. 7 Police Station Gendarmerie.
The Prosecution relied primarily on live victim testimony.
In order to prove the seriousness of the treatment actually inflicted, including beating and water torture, the Prosecution relied on expert evidence of a doctor. He argued that torture contributed to the death of the victims in question notwithstanding a then prevailing disease (tuberculosis).
The Prosecution relied primarily on live victim testimony.
In order to prove the seriousness of the treatment actually inflicted, including beating and water torture, the Prosecution relied on expert evidence of a doctor. He argued that torture contributed to the death of the victims in question notwithstanding a then prevailing disease (tuberculosis).
Defence
The Defence was in essence a complete denial that the Accused ill-treated or tortured any of the aforementioned civilians, although he admitted that he had interrogated them.
Additionally, the Defence argued that due to the publicity of the trial, the public were inclined to think all gendarmes ill-treated and tortured the local inhabitants. However, only a handful of them mistreated members of the public.
The Defence also claimed that the victims’ families might have a grudge against the Accused, and therefore exaggerated their testimony.
On the point of water torture, the Defence challenged certain witnesses’ testimony, arguing that the severity of the water torture was exaggerated. At the same time, the Defence continued to argue that what actually happened to individual witnesses never happened.
Additionally, the Defence argued that due to the publicity of the trial, the public were inclined to think all gendarmes ill-treated and tortured the local inhabitants. However, only a handful of them mistreated members of the public.
The Defence also claimed that the victims’ families might have a grudge against the Accused, and therefore exaggerated their testimony.
On the point of water torture, the Defence challenged certain witnesses’ testimony, arguing that the severity of the water torture was exaggerated. At the same time, the Defence continued to argue that what actually happened to individual witnesses never happened.
Prosecutor
Major G. B. Puddicombe (Advocate) (The Victoria Rifles of Canada)
Defence Counsel
Mr. Fujita Tetsuo (Japanese Barrister)
Judges
President: Lt. Col. J.C. Stewart (Dept. of JAG, India, Solicitor)
Members: Major M.I. Ormsby (West Yorks Regiment); Capt B.N. Kaul (The Frontier Force Regt.)
Members: Major M.I. Ormsby (West Yorks Regiment); Capt B.N. Kaul (The Frontier Force Regt.)
Advisory Officer
Lieut. J.R. Haggan, R.E.
Prosecution Witnesses
A.M. Scott (Civil Servant, Waterwork Office)
Axel Olsson (Warehouse Foreman)
Denis Victor (Manager of a dancing hall)
Chiu Mok-cheuk (Clothes Merchant)
Ling Ce-Kiang (Employee, Cable and Wireless)
Chan Luk-chau (Employee, Cable and Wireless)
Yuen Man-ching (Clerk, Nethersole Hospital)
Dr. T.P. Wu (Medical Practitioner)
Hui She Siu-kee (Unemployed, Wife of Hui Yee-dai)
Suen Chun-ho (Employee, a barber?s shop)
Kwok Kwok-yin (Import and Export Merchant)
Na Ying-Cheun (Employee, a barber?s shop)
Che Hok-ying (Employee, a barber?s shop)
Major K. Hussain (War Crimes Investigation Unit)
Defence Witnesses
Sergeant Matsunabu Shigeru (Accused)
Capt. Ogura Kuraichi (Gendarme Captain, Commanding Office of Hong Kong Island)
W/O Jurasawa Hideo (Warrant Office, Hong Kong District Gendarmerie)
Trial Dates
25-Jul-1946
26-Jul-1946
27-Jul-1946
30-Jul-1946
01-Aug-1946
Judgement Date
01-Aug-1946
Judgement Confirmation Date
23-Aug-1946
Judgement Promulgation Date
26-Aug-1946
Judgement
Held that the Accused was guilty.
Petition
No Petition was recorded.
According to the Judge Advocate, "After a well-conducted and careful trial the Court found the accused guilty of the charges as laid and sentenced him to 8 years imprisonment. The sentence is, in my opinion, a very lenient one, considering the brutal and systematic ill-treatment meted out by the accused to these civilians as disclosed by the evidence".
Elsewhere in the review, the Judge Advocate noted indirect evidence and hearsay evidence. He noted a number of procedural issues (of a minor
nature).
Nevertheless, the Judge Advocate advised confirmation of findings and sentence.
According to the Judge Advocate, "After a well-conducted and careful trial the Court found the accused guilty of the charges as laid and sentenced him to 8 years imprisonment. The sentence is, in my opinion, a very lenient one, considering the brutal and systematic ill-treatment meted out by the accused to these civilians as disclosed by the evidence".
Elsewhere in the review, the Judge Advocate noted indirect evidence and hearsay evidence. He noted a number of procedural issues (of a minor
nature).
Nevertheless, the Judge Advocate advised confirmation of findings and sentence.
Sentence Imposed
8 Years Imprisonment
Keywords
Hong Kong; Kempeitai; Gendarme/Gendarmes/Gendarmerie; Civilians; Place of Detention; "concerned in"; Committed; Torture; Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment; Unlawful killing; War Crimes; Violations of laws and customs of war