To access the complete case file, click here
Case No.
WO235/1027
Accused
Sato Chochi
Court
Military Court for the Trial of War Criminals No. 7
Charge
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, in that he at Hong Kong, between October 1942 and the 15th August 1945 when Medical Officer in charge of Stanley Gaol Hospital and as such responsible for the well-being of British and Chinese prisoners who were patients therein, in violation of the laws and usages of war was concerned in the illtreatment of the said prisoners by failing to provide them with adequate medical attention including medicine, drugs and suitable diet, thereby contributing to the deaths of many of them and causing physical suffering to others.”
Background
The Accused was a Medical Officer in charge of the Hospital in Stanley Gaol. His official status was not very clear, but it was not denied that his responsibility was to look after patients admitted there. He had been appointed Health Officer of the Japanese Governor’s Office in Hong Kong in October 1944 at the same time as he was appointed Medical Officer of Stanley Gaol.
Allegations
It was first argued that he was actually responsible for the sick patients in the Stanley Gaol Hospital and retained the charge of the Hospital until the surrender. The Prosecution relied on the notion of “concerned in” to “connote that the accused was entrusted with the care and well being of the sick…at Stanley Gaol Hospital and as a medical officer, he was under obligation to render necessary medical aid and adequate diet to them, upon which the laws of ethics, profession and Nations insist.”
Specifically, it was argued that the Accused had premeditated medical (criminal) neglect calculated to inflict the utmost and wholly unwarranted suffering on the victims, some of whom eventually died. It was argued also that if the sufferings and deaths of some of the victims were attributable to the neglect, then the court was “entitled to presume the presence of malice as an ingredient of offence on the principal that one must be taken to intend the probable and natural consequence of one’s act” (Emphasis added).
The alleged neglect included a lack of medical attention (e.g. rare visits to the hospital), medicines and drugs that were “so essential to the recovering of the sick”; the inadequate and insufficient food supplied to those “whose only hope of survival depended upon proper and adequate food” and the lack of supervision of the staff of the hospital.
The Prosecution challenged the Accused’s “too-busy” argument. It argued that the only duties of the Accused, apart from those at the Hospital, were to give medical attention to the staff at the Governor-General’s Office, Signals Unit at Stanley and the Governor-General’s residence and the sanatorium of the Ordinance Depot and Restaurant.
Specifically, it was argued that the Accused had premeditated medical (criminal) neglect calculated to inflict the utmost and wholly unwarranted suffering on the victims, some of whom eventually died. It was argued also that if the sufferings and deaths of some of the victims were attributable to the neglect, then the court was “entitled to presume the presence of malice as an ingredient of offence on the principal that one must be taken to intend the probable and natural consequence of one’s act” (Emphasis added).
The alleged neglect included a lack of medical attention (e.g. rare visits to the hospital), medicines and drugs that were “so essential to the recovering of the sick”; the inadequate and insufficient food supplied to those “whose only hope of survival depended upon proper and adequate food” and the lack of supervision of the staff of the hospital.
The Prosecution challenged the Accused’s “too-busy” argument. It argued that the only duties of the Accused, apart from those at the Hospital, were to give medical attention to the staff at the Governor-General’s Office, Signals Unit at Stanley and the Governor-General’s residence and the sanatorium of the Ordinance Depot and Restaurant.
Defence
It was not disputed that the Accused was in charge of Medical Affairs at Stanley Gaol.
However, it was noted that he was an “extremely busy” person, being also appointed as the Medical Officer to the Hong Kong Governor-General’s Office, and had other duties. Additionally, the Accused was not given proper instruction when he was assigned concurrent duties at Stanley Gaol Hospital, which made his job extremely difficult. The Accused’s superior “did not state definitely the position and authority of [the Accused] although he should have done so”, making it more like an irregular or informal instruction rather than formal appointment.
On the question of medical attention, despite administrative difficulties and the unclear delineation of duties, the Accused tried his best to visit the hospital as often as he could.
On the question of diagnosis and treatment, since he was unable to visit the hospial frequently, the Accused had taken a number of measures to carry out his duties as efficiently as possible, such as by delegating the diagnosis function to other officers (who had some medical training), whose reports he would read.
On the question of medical supplies, the Defence argued that the responsibility for medical supplies rested with the Commissioner, and the Accused only had an advisory function on this matter. In any case, the Accused stated that he found the medical supplies to be sufficient when he visited the site. Naturally, some shortages were inevitable in times of war.
On the question of food, the Defence argued that the responsibility for rations rested with the Commissioner and the Accused only had an advisory function on this matter. The Accused asked for more rations, but his requests were unsuccessful. As such, he started the vegetable plots within the compound to make the Prison self-sufficient.
In relation to the supervision of subordinates, the prison staff was supervised by the Commissioner and their chief warder rather than the Accused. Despite this, the Accused as a medical officer, gave as detailed instructions as possible to the hospital staff regarding the health of the patients.
[Arguments on specific cases, deaths of patients are omitted.]
However, it was noted that he was an “extremely busy” person, being also appointed as the Medical Officer to the Hong Kong Governor-General’s Office, and had other duties. Additionally, the Accused was not given proper instruction when he was assigned concurrent duties at Stanley Gaol Hospital, which made his job extremely difficult. The Accused’s superior “did not state definitely the position and authority of [the Accused] although he should have done so”, making it more like an irregular or informal instruction rather than formal appointment.
On the question of medical attention, despite administrative difficulties and the unclear delineation of duties, the Accused tried his best to visit the hospital as often as he could.
On the question of diagnosis and treatment, since he was unable to visit the hospial frequently, the Accused had taken a number of measures to carry out his duties as efficiently as possible, such as by delegating the diagnosis function to other officers (who had some medical training), whose reports he would read.
On the question of medical supplies, the Defence argued that the responsibility for medical supplies rested with the Commissioner, and the Accused only had an advisory function on this matter. In any case, the Accused stated that he found the medical supplies to be sufficient when he visited the site. Naturally, some shortages were inevitable in times of war.
On the question of food, the Defence argued that the responsibility for rations rested with the Commissioner and the Accused only had an advisory function on this matter. The Accused asked for more rations, but his requests were unsuccessful. As such, he started the vegetable plots within the compound to make the Prison self-sufficient.
In relation to the supervision of subordinates, the prison staff was supervised by the Commissioner and their chief warder rather than the Accused. Despite this, the Accused as a medical officer, gave as detailed instructions as possible to the hospital staff regarding the health of the patients.
[Arguments on specific cases, deaths of patients are omitted.]
Prosecutor
Major R.C. Lai (Dept. of the JAG, India, Barrister)
Defence Counsel
Mr. Hasegawa Yukichi (Japanese Barrister)
Judges
President: Lt. Col. N.G. Wait (Intelligence Corps)
Members: Major Clayworth (Royal Artillery); Capt. R.B.R. Corely (King’s Royal Rifle Corps)
Members: Major Clayworth (Royal Artillery); Capt. R.B.R. Corely (King’s Royal Rifle Corps)
Advisory Officer
Capt. J.N. Whitehorn (Intelligence Corps.)
Prosecution Witnesses
Rahmet Khan(Chief Indian Warder, Stanley Prison)
Noboru Saito(Banker; Ex-prisoner, Stanley Goal)
Dr Harry Talbot(Doctor; Ex-prisoner, Stanley Gaol)
C.F. Miles(Chief Steward, Medical Department, Hong Kong Government)
Chan Wai-Chi (Woman)(Nurse, Stanley Goal Hospital)
Yeung Sze-Man(Clerk, Standard-Vacuum Company)
V.M. Morrison(Detective Sub-Inspector, No 2 Wan Chai Police Station)
Sgt Toy Ito(Sgt, Canadian Army attached to the War Crimes Investigation Unit)
Allan Harold Barwell(Medical Practitioner, Prison Medical Officer, Stanley Gaol)
Kenneth Harrison Uttley(Physician, Doctor, Tweed Bay Hospital)
Edward David Sykes(Merchant, Ex-prisoner, Stanley Gaol)
W.J. Anderson(Civil Servant, Ex-prisoner, Stanley Gaol)
Defence Witnesses
Lt. Sato Chochi(First Lieutenant, Medical Doctor, Japanese Army)
George Tong(Interpreter, No. 7 War Crimes Court)
Lt. Col. Kogi Kazuo(Lieutenant-Colonel, Legal Officer, Japanese Army)
Sgt Yamazaki Masao(Military Legal Sergeant, Warder, Hong Kong Prison (a.k.a Stanley Goal))
Sgt Suhara Sueichi(Army Sergeant, Assistant, Stanley Prison)
Sgt Itano Yoshitaro(Military Legal Sergeant, Warder, Hong Kong Prison (aka Stanley Goal))
Capt Uehara Kokichi(Gendarmerie Captain, Police Affairs Department, Governor General?s Office)
R.J. Hardy(On demobilization leave from the R.A.F)
Capt J.N. Whitehorn(Advisory Officer, No. 7 War Crimes Court)
Trial Dates
30-May-1947
31-May-1947
02-Jun-1947
03-Jun-1947
04-Jun-1947
05-Jun-1947
06-Jun-1947
07-Jun-1947
09-Jun-1947
13-Jun-1947
Judgement Date
05-May-1947
Judgement Confirmation Date
30-Jul-1947
Judgement Promulgation Date
05-Aug-1947
Judgement
Held: The Accused was guilty.
Petition
The Accused petitioned:
1. It was not proven that he had any legal responsibility in regard to the Stanley Gaol Hospital;
2. The judgement was not based on a sufficient inquiry from the medical point of view;
3. The sentence was unduly severe in light of the evidence
.
A number of supporting petitions were filed, they included:
1. One that was filed by several persons from the Accused's village. They asked for the Accused’s return.
2. One filed by Dr. Selwyn-Clarke (D.M.S. and also ex-prisoner of Stanley) that the Accused did much to alleviate the position in the hospital.
On 27 August 1946, the Judge Advocate [Brigadier N.H. New, DJAG, South East Asia Land Forces] advised that the findings and sentences be confirmed.
The Judge Advocate noted that on two occasions, the Prosecution misled the Court in a manner which might seriously have prejudiced the Accused. This arose in relation to cross-examination of witnesses as to statements they made in other proceedings. The Defence had attempted to question a witness as to a statement made in another trial, “as he was perfectly entitled to do”. The Prosecution challenged this, pushing the Defence to indicate exactly what the discrepancy between the two was. The Court supported this position. The Prosecutor argued that the statements made at the other trial should have been produced in court, before the relevant questions were put in cross-examination. The Judge Advocate advised that this was “nonsense”, as the “proceedings of an earlier trial are not themselves admissible in evidence though they may be used to refresh the memory of the witness”. The Judge Advocate advised that the Defence should have been allowed to question freely the witness as to the previous statement. If the witness admitted the correctness of it, then there would be no need to go further. Otherwise, the Defence should be allowed to call other witnesses (including members of that Court) to testify against the statement maker as to what was then said.
1. It was not proven that he had any legal responsibility in regard to the Stanley Gaol Hospital;
2. The judgement was not based on a sufficient inquiry from the medical point of view;
3. The sentence was unduly severe in light of the evidence
.
A number of supporting petitions were filed, they included:
1. One that was filed by several persons from the Accused's village. They asked for the Accused’s return.
2. One filed by Dr. Selwyn-Clarke (D.M.S. and also ex-prisoner of Stanley) that the Accused did much to alleviate the position in the hospital.
On 27 August 1946, the Judge Advocate [Brigadier N.H. New, DJAG, South East Asia Land Forces] advised that the findings and sentences be confirmed.
The Judge Advocate noted that on two occasions, the Prosecution misled the Court in a manner which might seriously have prejudiced the Accused. This arose in relation to cross-examination of witnesses as to statements they made in other proceedings. The Defence had attempted to question a witness as to a statement made in another trial, “as he was perfectly entitled to do”. The Prosecution challenged this, pushing the Defence to indicate exactly what the discrepancy between the two was. The Court supported this position. The Prosecutor argued that the statements made at the other trial should have been produced in court, before the relevant questions were put in cross-examination. The Judge Advocate advised that this was “nonsense”, as the “proceedings of an earlier trial are not themselves admissible in evidence though they may be used to refresh the memory of the witness”. The Judge Advocate advised that the Defence should have been allowed to question freely the witness as to the previous statement. If the witness admitted the correctness of it, then there would be no need to go further. Otherwise, the Defence should be allowed to call other witnesses (including members of that Court) to testify against the statement maker as to what was then said.
Sentence Imposed
8 years imprisonment
Keywords
Hong Kong; Health Officer; Governor's Office; Prison Hospital; Prisoners; War Crimes; Violations of laws and customs of war; Scope of responsibilities; "concerned in"; Torture; Cruel Inhumane or Degrading Treatment; Unlawful killing; Poor conditions of detention; Lack of adequate food and/or care; Failure to provide adequate medical care; Negligence; Civilian Command Responsibility; Mitigation