To access the complete case file, click here
Case No.
WO235/905
Accused
Sgt. Tashiro Toranosuke (D1)
Cpl. Ueno Mitsuo (D2)
Cpl. Kuribayashi Shigeru (D3)
Court
Military Court for the Trial of War Criminals No. 5
Charge
Committing a War Crime
“in that they at or near KINKASEKI Formosa between the months of November 1942 and August 1945 when members of the staff of No. 1 Prisoner of War Camp FORMOSA were in violation of the laws and usages of war concerned in the inhumane treatment of British and allied Prisoners of War in their custody thereby causing physical suffering to the said Prisoners of War and contributing to the deaths of many of them”.
“in that they at or near KINKASEKI Formosa between the months of November 1942 and August 1945 when members of the staff of No. 1 Prisoner of War Camp FORMOSA were in violation of the laws and usages of war concerned in the inhumane treatment of British and allied Prisoners of War in their custody thereby causing physical suffering to the said Prisoners of War and contributing to the deaths of many of them”.
Background
The three Accused comprised the Japanese medical squad at No. 1 Prisoners of War (‘POW’) Camp, Kinkaseki, Formosa. They were not Doctors. D1 was the N.C.O. in charge of the squad.
There was no Japanese Doctor in the Camp. The POWs had to rely for assistance on the POW Doctor Capt. Seed and later Maj. Wheeler, assisted by a dental surgeon and three British medical orderlies.
The Kinkaseki Camp provided POWs as labour for the nearby copper mine operated by a Japanese mining company. The Accused were said to have been concerned in the ill-treatment of the POWs, causing them physical suffering and contributing to the deaths of many of them.
There was no Japanese Doctor in the Camp. The POWs had to rely for assistance on the POW Doctor Capt. Seed and later Maj. Wheeler, assisted by a dental surgeon and three British medical orderlies.
The Kinkaseki Camp provided POWs as labour for the nearby copper mine operated by a Japanese mining company. The Accused were said to have been concerned in the ill-treatment of the POWs, causing them physical suffering and contributing to the deaths of many of them.
Allegations
The Prosecution argued that the work in the mine was extremely arduous and the working conditions were unhealthy. The Prosecution sought to establish that the Accused were directly responsible for dispatching POWs who were unfit and sick to work in the mine. The other Japanese officers in the Camp did not interfere with their decision to send unfit POWs to work, despite protest by the POW doctor. The Prosecution argued that the Accused were indifferent and negligent as far as the sick POWs were concerned. Events in question included a lack of supply of medical supplies, food stuff and also the sending of the sick to the mine to work. The Prosecution also sought to prove that the Accused (primarily led by the first Accused) abused the POWs by, including but not limiting to, beating and other ill-treatment, regardless of the victims’ health condition.
Defence
The Defence chiefly argued that responsibility lay elsewhere – the Japanese Medical Orderly and the POW Doctors.
In any case, no sick persons were actually sent to the mine to work.
The Accused argued that it was neither their duty, nor were they as medical orderlies qualified, to decide if men were fit to work in the mine. The Defence seemed to argue that the Accused ran the camp according to the orders and instructions of the POW headquarters in Taikoku. Therefore, the Accused could not be held responsible for what happened. Specifically, they argued that the Japanese medical officers from the headquarters and from Army hospitals at Kilung periodically visited the Camp and gave instructions to the Accused regarding their medical duties. Therefore, it was those who gave the instructions to the Accused who should be held liable.
The “sick parade” was also conducted in the presence of the Japanese Medical Orderly. The Accused had reason to believe in his decisions and expertise. They also argued that the decision to send POWs to work relied on the medical records in the camp, so they could not have sent the sick and the wounded to the mine at their free will.
Nevertheless, the Defence admitted that on one occasion, they sent some “not quite fit men” to work. But, that was under the order or Lt. Wakiyama and they were only sent to do light work.
Responsibility for such decisions also lay with the POW Doctors and their assistants. The Accused merely ensured that things ran smoothly and took no part in deciding admission and discharge from the hospital.
On the allegation of being negligent of the sick, the Accused blamed the general shortage of drugs at the relevant time rather than a refusal to take care of the POWs properly. Any withholding of the drugs in the Japanese office was for the purpose of record only.
As for the deaths within the camp, the Defence relied on a number of explanations including shortage of medical supplies, and also bad climate (the wet/rainy season); change of labour conditions, and exhaustion and sickness during the transportation to Formosa.
Lastly, the Defence also denied any involvement in the beating and abuse of the POWs on grounds of insufficient or exaggerated evidence
In any case, no sick persons were actually sent to the mine to work.
The Accused argued that it was neither their duty, nor were they as medical orderlies qualified, to decide if men were fit to work in the mine. The Defence seemed to argue that the Accused ran the camp according to the orders and instructions of the POW headquarters in Taikoku. Therefore, the Accused could not be held responsible for what happened. Specifically, they argued that the Japanese medical officers from the headquarters and from Army hospitals at Kilung periodically visited the Camp and gave instructions to the Accused regarding their medical duties. Therefore, it was those who gave the instructions to the Accused who should be held liable.
The “sick parade” was also conducted in the presence of the Japanese Medical Orderly. The Accused had reason to believe in his decisions and expertise. They also argued that the decision to send POWs to work relied on the medical records in the camp, so they could not have sent the sick and the wounded to the mine at their free will.
Nevertheless, the Defence admitted that on one occasion, they sent some “not quite fit men” to work. But, that was under the order or Lt. Wakiyama and they were only sent to do light work.
Responsibility for such decisions also lay with the POW Doctors and their assistants. The Accused merely ensured that things ran smoothly and took no part in deciding admission and discharge from the hospital.
On the allegation of being negligent of the sick, the Accused blamed the general shortage of drugs at the relevant time rather than a refusal to take care of the POWs properly. Any withholding of the drugs in the Japanese office was for the purpose of record only.
As for the deaths within the camp, the Defence relied on a number of explanations including shortage of medical supplies, and also bad climate (the wet/rainy season); change of labour conditions, and exhaustion and sickness during the transportation to Formosa.
Lastly, the Defence also denied any involvement in the beating and abuse of the POWs on grounds of insufficient or exaggerated evidence
Prosecutor
Major P.A.L. Vine, Royal Marines
Defence Counsel
Fujita Tetsuo, a Judge in the Local Court, Hiroshima, Japan.
Judges
President: Lt. Col. R.C. Laming, Judge Advocate General Department in India, Barrister-at-Law.
Members: Major J.T. Loranger, Judge Advocate General Department, Canadian Army; Capt. K.R. Busfield, R.A.C.
Members: Major J.T. Loranger, Judge Advocate General Department, Canadian Army; Capt. K.R. Busfield, R.A.C.
Advisory Officer
Capt. P. Kostiloff, 1st Gurkha Rifles
Prosecution Witnesses
Major J.T.N. Cross (Major, Royal Artillery)
Ho Kan Tan (Interpreter, War Crimes Formosa Liaison Section)
W/O Edwards (Warrant Officer, Royal Corps of Signals)
Sasaki (Unknown)
Defence Witnesses
Sgt Tashiro (Accused. Medical Sergeant, Japanese Army)
Cpl. Ueno Mitsuo (Accused. Medical Corporal, Japanese Army)
Kuribayashi Shigeru (Accused. Medical Corporal, Japanese Army)
Ashia Tsumoru (Lieutenant, Formosa Prisoners of War Camp, Japanese Army)
Lt. Tara Iwo (Lieutenant, Formosa Prisoners of War Camp, Japanese Army)
Takeuchi Suauchi (Foreman, Kinkaseki Mining Company)
Nagai Takegoru (Employee, Formosa Japan Mining Company)
Lt. Brett (Lieutenant, Canadian Intelligence Corps.)
Trial Dates
02-Oct-1946
03-Oct-1946
04-Oct-1946
05-Oct-1946
07-Oct-1946
08-Oct-1946
09-Oct-1946
10-Oct-1946
14-Oct-1946
Judgement Date
14-Oct-1946
Judgement Confirmation Date
31-Oct-1946
Judgement Promulgation Date
05-Nov-1946
Judgement
Held:
1. That the first accused was guilty except for the words “contributing to the deaths of many of them”;
2. That the second accused was guilty except for the words “contributing to the deaths of many of them”;
3. That the third accused was guilty except for the words “contributing to the deaths of many of them”.
1. That the first accused was guilty except for the words “contributing to the deaths of many of them”;
2. That the second accused was guilty except for the words “contributing to the deaths of many of them”;
3. That the third accused was guilty except for the words “contributing to the deaths of many of them”.
Petition
No Petition is on the record.
The Judge Advocate (Lt. Col. D.A. Wright, A.J.A.G, Land Forces, 28 October 1946) recommended confirmation of findings and sentences. He drew attention to the evidence against D1 and the degree to which he contributed to the deaths of 3 named POWs - "the Court were presumably of the opinion that it would be unsafe to deduce from this in the absence of some supporting medical testimony, and decided that the Prosecution had failed to produce satisfactory evidence of a sufficient number of specific instances of neglect or brutal illtreatment such as could reasonably be held to have contributed to the deaths of "MANY" P.O.W.s as averrred in the charge; a special finding was accordingly passed excepting this averment."
The Judge Advocate observed that the Court did differentiate between the different degrees of involvement of the various Accused. This was borne out by the sentencing.
The absence of live testimony from ex-POWs was commented on by the Judge Advocate. “To my mind, it is most unfortunate that no evidence was forthcoming from any of the P.O.W. doctors or the medical orderlies, who must have been in continual contact with the accused; their testimony, if available, would undoubtedly have strengthened the Prosecution case, with reference, in particular, to the alleged withholding of drugs by the accused and the reduction of rations for sick P.O.W.s by Sgt. Tashiro, the evidence on which was far from satisfactory: such evidence might possibly have resulted in the award of deservedly severe sentences.”
The Judge Advocate (Lt. Col. D.A. Wright, A.J.A.G, Land Forces, 28 October 1946) recommended confirmation of findings and sentences. He drew attention to the evidence against D1 and the degree to which he contributed to the deaths of 3 named POWs - "the Court were presumably of the opinion that it would be unsafe to deduce from this in the absence of some supporting medical testimony, and decided that the Prosecution had failed to produce satisfactory evidence of a sufficient number of specific instances of neglect or brutal illtreatment such as could reasonably be held to have contributed to the deaths of "MANY" P.O.W.s as averrred in the charge; a special finding was accordingly passed excepting this averment."
The Judge Advocate observed that the Court did differentiate between the different degrees of involvement of the various Accused. This was borne out by the sentencing.
The absence of live testimony from ex-POWs was commented on by the Judge Advocate. “To my mind, it is most unfortunate that no evidence was forthcoming from any of the P.O.W. doctors or the medical orderlies, who must have been in continual contact with the accused; their testimony, if available, would undoubtedly have strengthened the Prosecution case, with reference, in particular, to the alleged withholding of drugs by the accused and the reduction of rations for sick P.O.W.s by Sgt. Tashiro, the evidence on which was far from satisfactory: such evidence might possibly have resulted in the award of deservedly severe sentences.”
Sentence Imposed
D1: 8 years imprisonment;
D2: 2 years imprisonment;
D3: 2 years imprisonment.
D2: 2 years imprisonment;
D3: 2 years imprisonment.
Keywords
Formosa; Prisoners of War; Sick or wounded; Prisoner of War Camp; "concerned in"; Committed; Medical or related personnel; Poor conditions of detention; Neglect; Failure to provide adequate medical care; Failure to provide adequate food and/or care; Forced labour; Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment; Unlawful killings; Orders; Superior Orders; Scope of responsibilities; POW medical personnel; Neglect; War Crimes; Violations of the laws and customs of war; Necessity; Death from natural causes; Scope of responsibilities
Remarks
3 Co-Accused - 1 defence lawyer.