To access the complete case file, click here
Case No.
WO235/1028
Accused
Toda Mitsugu (D1)
Nakamura Katsumi (D2)
Yonemura Matsatoshi (D3)
Nagai Takegoro “Ghost” (D4)
Cho Kun Toku “Frying Pan” (D5)
Takeichi Seichi “Nelson” (D6)
Utsonomiya Kozo “Charlie Chaplin” (D7)
Zushi Teruo “Eagle and Don R” (D8)
Suenobu Fumio “Blackie” (D9)
Court
Military Court for the Trial of War Criminals No. 5
Charge
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, in that they at KINKASEKI, FORMOSA, between December 1942 and May 1945, being on the staff of the KINKASEKI Nippon Mining Coy., and as such being responsible for the safety and welfare of the British and American Prisoners of War employed in the mine under their supervision, were, in violation of the laws and usages of war, concerned in the illtreatment of the aforesaid Prisoners of War, contributing to the death of some of them and causing physical sufferings to the others.”
Background
The Accused were all civilians in the service of the Imperial Japanese Army. They were on the staff of the Kinkaseki Nippon Mining Co., whose objects were mining for copper. D1 was the General Manager of the mine. D2 was the Chief of the Mining Department. D3 was a Liaison Officer between the Prisoners of War (‘POW’) Camp and the mining company. D4, D5, D6, D7, D8 and D9 were foremen working in the mine and were in charge of the operations.
The POW camps in the vicinity of the mine provided the manpower for the mine. There were six POW Camps in total: the No. 1 Kinkaseki Camp; the No. 2 Kaichyu Camp; the No. 3 Heito Camp; the No. 4 Shirakawa Camp; the No. 5 Mokasaku (Taihoku) Camp and the No. 6 Daichoku (Taihoku) Camp). POWs were sent daily to work in the said mine. On their arrival at the mine, they would be put under the authority of the mining company's staff, who would supervise and provide them with equipment for mining purposes.
The POW camps in the vicinity of the mine provided the manpower for the mine. There were six POW Camps in total: the No. 1 Kinkaseki Camp; the No. 2 Kaichyu Camp; the No. 3 Heito Camp; the No. 4 Shirakawa Camp; the No. 5 Mokasaku (Taihoku) Camp and the No. 6 Daichoku (Taihoku) Camp). POWs were sent daily to work in the said mine. On their arrival at the mine, they would be put under the authority of the mining company's staff, who would supervise and provide them with equipment for mining purposes.
Allegations
The Prosecution argued that the conditions at the mine, which consisted of three floors, were abominable. The heat was excessive, there were falling rocks and deep pools. The personal equipment given to the POWs were also very poor, such as cardboard hats, inefficient lamps and sandals. Accidents inside the mine caused deaths and injuries. Yet, no steps were taken to remedy the situation, or to improve the equipments or the working environment.
The hanchos (guards) were alleged to have regularly beaten, by bare fists or sometimes with hammers, the POWs working in the mine.
On the question of attribution of responsibility, the Prosecution accepted that the “overall and complete” responsibility of the POWs both in the Camp and in the mine rested with the Camp Commandant. However, it was also argued that the Mining Company was “responsible for the safety and welfare of the POWs whilst employed in the mine under their supervision” and that the company cannot disclaim all responsibility over their new employees.
It was argued that the responsibility for deaths and injuries of the POWs within the mine rested solely with the Mining Company, and had nothing to do with the Japanese Army including the POW Camp commandants.
The hanchos (guards) were alleged to have regularly beaten, by bare fists or sometimes with hammers, the POWs working in the mine.
On the question of attribution of responsibility, the Prosecution accepted that the “overall and complete” responsibility of the POWs both in the Camp and in the mine rested with the Camp Commandant. However, it was also argued that the Mining Company was “responsible for the safety and welfare of the POWs whilst employed in the mine under their supervision” and that the company cannot disclaim all responsibility over their new employees.
It was argued that the responsibility for deaths and injuries of the POWs within the mine rested solely with the Mining Company, and had nothing to do with the Japanese Army including the POW Camp commandants.
Defence
The Defence argued that the POW working parties made their fellow POWs work in the Kinkaseki mine.
The Military authority knew the mine was not “suitable” for POW labour. The application for POW labour by the Mining Company was only a “formal” one upon the request of the authority. The fact was that the POWs were under the “direct control of the POW Branch Camp Commandant”.
D1 and D2 argued that they were not responsible for anything that happened to the POWs in the mine because they were under the jurisdiction of the camp authorities. The Prosecution rebutted this by submitting the “Regulations concerning the supervision of labour of Prisoners of War in Kinkaseki Mine of the Nippon Mining Co", which provided in Art. 7 that "The Commandant of the POW camp group shall be held responsible for the supervision and guarding of the POWs even during working hours prescribed in the preceding article. However the responsibility for matters pertaining to work lies with the Nippon Mining Co.".
For D1
D1 had no connection with the working parties and had never served in the army as a civilian. As such, those who supervised the POWs had nothing to do with him.
Second, it was argued that the Nippon Mining Company did not actually employ POWs to work. They were made to work by the Military. The Company only participated in the “guidance of the POWs” under the supervision of the authorities.
Thirdly, it was argued that in any case, the responsibility for practical work matters rested with the technical supervisor and not the general manager of the company. The hanchos (guards) were hired and paid for by the Company. Once they were dispatched to the POW working parties, they were under the “direct control” of the Military (as “attached personnel”). Under circumstances, their acts were not attributable to the Accused.
Lastly, D1 duly investigated accidents and reported them to the Governor General’s headquarters in Formosa. He received confirmation that the deaths in question were not due to any negligence on the Company’s part.
For D2
The defence argued that since the POWs were forced to work under the supervision of D2, who was a technical supervisor, it would be unreasonable to hold him liable. They were still under the control of the POW commandant. Additionally, D2 tried his best to improve the situation, despite the difficulties in obtaining supplies outside Formosa.
For D3
It was argued that D3 did not hold any position of responsibility in the Mining Department. Nevertheless, he endeavored to treat the POWs humanely and tried to improve the situation as best as he could.
For the remaining Accused
It was not denied that there were occasional beatings. However, such beatings were “justified”.
It was argued that “quite naturally, the POW(s) did everything possible to upset the smooth running of the mine” such that it had “effects on the nerves” of the Accused. It was inevitable that there would be tension between the Accused and the POWs, who were untrained and not being fed properly by the Authority. As such, under such extremely stressful situation, it was no wonder that the Accused lost their tempers occasionally.
The Military authority knew the mine was not “suitable” for POW labour. The application for POW labour by the Mining Company was only a “formal” one upon the request of the authority. The fact was that the POWs were under the “direct control of the POW Branch Camp Commandant”.
D1 and D2 argued that they were not responsible for anything that happened to the POWs in the mine because they were under the jurisdiction of the camp authorities. The Prosecution rebutted this by submitting the “Regulations concerning the supervision of labour of Prisoners of War in Kinkaseki Mine of the Nippon Mining Co", which provided in Art. 7 that "The Commandant of the POW camp group shall be held responsible for the supervision and guarding of the POWs even during working hours prescribed in the preceding article. However the responsibility for matters pertaining to work lies with the Nippon Mining Co.".
For D1
D1 had no connection with the working parties and had never served in the army as a civilian. As such, those who supervised the POWs had nothing to do with him.
Second, it was argued that the Nippon Mining Company did not actually employ POWs to work. They were made to work by the Military. The Company only participated in the “guidance of the POWs” under the supervision of the authorities.
Thirdly, it was argued that in any case, the responsibility for practical work matters rested with the technical supervisor and not the general manager of the company. The hanchos (guards) were hired and paid for by the Company. Once they were dispatched to the POW working parties, they were under the “direct control” of the Military (as “attached personnel”). Under circumstances, their acts were not attributable to the Accused.
Lastly, D1 duly investigated accidents and reported them to the Governor General’s headquarters in Formosa. He received confirmation that the deaths in question were not due to any negligence on the Company’s part.
For D2
The defence argued that since the POWs were forced to work under the supervision of D2, who was a technical supervisor, it would be unreasonable to hold him liable. They were still under the control of the POW commandant. Additionally, D2 tried his best to improve the situation, despite the difficulties in obtaining supplies outside Formosa.
For D3
It was argued that D3 did not hold any position of responsibility in the Mining Department. Nevertheless, he endeavored to treat the POWs humanely and tried to improve the situation as best as he could.
For the remaining Accused
It was not denied that there were occasional beatings. However, such beatings were “justified”.
It was argued that “quite naturally, the POW(s) did everything possible to upset the smooth running of the mine” such that it had “effects on the nerves” of the Accused. It was inevitable that there would be tension between the Accused and the POWs, who were untrained and not being fed properly by the Authority. As such, under such extremely stressful situation, it was no wonder that the Accused lost their tempers occasionally.
Prosecutor
Major M.I. Ormsby (West Yorks)
Defence Counsel
Mr. Yamana Toshio (Doctor of Jurisprudence (Japan); Doctor of Philosophy (US))
Judges
President: Lt. Col. R.C. Laming (Barrister, Indian Army)
Members: Major R.S. Butterfield (Indian Grenadiers); Capt E.R. Busfired (R.A.C.)
Members: Major R.S. Butterfield (Indian Grenadiers); Capt E.R. Busfired (R.A.C.)
Advisory Officer
Lieut. D.C.J. Banfield (The BUFFS)
Prosecution Witnesses
W/O Edwards(Warrant Officer, First Class, British Army)
Sgt. Ito(Member, SEATIC Detachment, Hong Kong; Interpreter No. 14, War Crimes Court)
[No record]([No record])
Sazawa Hideo(Second Chief Commandant in Formosa (of all camps))
Hanagaki Yoshio(Interpreter)
Major J.T.N. Cross(Officer Commanding No. 14 War Crimes Team; Ex-Prisoner of War in Kinkaseki Camp)
Nakano Junichi(Chief Camp Commandant of POW Camps in Formosa)
Captain Imamura Yohashi(Camp Commandant, No. 1 Kinkaseki POW Camp.)
George Tong(Interpreter, No. 7 War Crimes Court)
Defence Witnesses
Toda Mitsugu(D1, Director of the Nippon Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha; Branch Manager in Formosa; General Manager of the Kinkaseki mine.)
Nakamura Katsumi(D2, Mine Production Manager / Assistant to the Chief of the Mining Department.)
L.O. Thomson(Public Works Department, Road and Tunnel Office.)
Yonemura Masatoshi(D3, Member, Mining Department, Kinkaseki Mine.)
Nagai Takegoro(D4, Apprentice and Hancho, Kinkaseki Mine.)
Takeichi Seichi(D5, Foreman, Neichu Metre Dan, Kinkaseki Mine.)
Utsonomiya Koso(D6, In charge of the POW Work, Kinkaseki Mine.)
Zushi Teruo(D8, Foreman, Kinkaseki Mine.)
Suenobu Fumio(D9, Foreman, Kinkaseki Mine.)
Tahara Iwao(Ex-Army Officer)
Suzuki Nobuo(Lieutenant, Japanese Army)
Ueno Mitsuo(Medical Orderly, Kinkaseki Camp)
Kuirabayashi Shigeru(Medical Corporal, Medical N.C.O., Kinkaseki Camp.)
Court Witnesses
Nakano Junichi(Chief Camp Commandant of POW Camps in Formosa [Co-Accused in Case 1044])
Trial Dates
07-May-1947
08-May-1947
09-May-1947
10-May-1947
12-May-1947
13-May-1947
14-May-1947
15-May-1947
16-May-1947
17-May-1947
19-May-1947
20-May-1947
21-May-1947
22-May-1947
23-May-1947
28-May-1947
Judgement Date
28-May-1947
Judgement Confirmation Date
08-Aug-1947
Judgement Promulgation Date
13-Aug-1947
Judgement
Held:
1. D1 was guilty.
2. D2 was guilty.
3. D3 was not guilty.
4. D4, D5, D6, D7, D8 and D9 were guilty except for the words “contributing to the death of some of them”.
1. D1 was guilty.
2. D2 was guilty.
3. D3 was not guilty.
4. D4, D5, D6, D7, D8 and D9 were guilty except for the words “contributing to the death of some of them”.
Petition
D1 petitioned. He argued that:
1. He was never attached to the Imperial Japanese Army and had never served as a civilian attached to the Japanese Army. The POWs were forced to his mine by the Military.
2. As such he should not be held responsible for the welfare of the POWs.
D2 petitioned. He argued that the sea routes to Formosa were all shut down, owing to the Allied Force’s activities, making the obtaining of supplies difficult. He did his best to replenish the depleted stock and also to keep the accident rate low. All the accidents recorded were due to natural causes and circumstances beyond his control.
D4, D5, D6, D7, D8 and D9 petitioned. They argued that:
1. It was not denied occasional beatings took place but it was actually on a much lesser scale than alleged by the Prosecution
2. The POWs tried to delay and hinder the production that naturally led to friction between the POWs and the foreman.
The Judge Advocate advised that the Petitions be dismissed and findings/sentences confirmed on 27 August 1946 [unidentified Brigadier, DJAG, South East Asia Land Forces]. The Judge Advocate observed that at a late stage of the proceedings, issues arose in relation to the identification of D4 and D7. However, "all the accused had already been identified by the live witness, PW1 and the photographs originally attached to the affidavits of the absent witnesses were compared with the likeness of the accused in the dock by the Court which was quite satisfied that the absent witnesses had not made any mistake in the identify of the accused".
1. He was never attached to the Imperial Japanese Army and had never served as a civilian attached to the Japanese Army. The POWs were forced to his mine by the Military.
2. As such he should not be held responsible for the welfare of the POWs.
D2 petitioned. He argued that the sea routes to Formosa were all shut down, owing to the Allied Force’s activities, making the obtaining of supplies difficult. He did his best to replenish the depleted stock and also to keep the accident rate low. All the accidents recorded were due to natural causes and circumstances beyond his control.
D4, D5, D6, D7, D8 and D9 petitioned. They argued that:
1. It was not denied occasional beatings took place but it was actually on a much lesser scale than alleged by the Prosecution
2. The POWs tried to delay and hinder the production that naturally led to friction between the POWs and the foreman.
The Judge Advocate advised that the Petitions be dismissed and findings/sentences confirmed on 27 August 1946 [unidentified Brigadier, DJAG, South East Asia Land Forces]. The Judge Advocate observed that at a late stage of the proceedings, issues arose in relation to the identification of D4 and D7. However, "all the accused had already been identified by the live witness, PW1 and the photographs originally attached to the affidavits of the absent witnesses were compared with the likeness of the accused in the dock by the Court which was quite satisfied that the absent witnesses had not made any mistake in the identify of the accused".
Sentence Imposed
D1: 1 year imprisonment;
D2: 5 years imprisonment;
D7: 4 years imprisonment;
D4: 10 years imprisonment;
D5: 7 years imprisonment;
D6: 2 years imprisonment;
D8: 10 years imprisonment;
D9: 3 years imprisonment.
D2: 5 years imprisonment;
D7: 4 years imprisonment;
D4: 10 years imprisonment;
D5: 7 years imprisonment;
D6: 2 years imprisonment;
D8: 10 years imprisonment;
D9: 3 years imprisonment.
Keywords
Formosa; Mine; Kinkaseki Nippon Mining Company; Imperial Japanese Army; Prisoners-of-War; Forced labour; Slave labour; Poor conditions of work; Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment; Unlawful killing; "concerned in"; "contributing to"; Provocation; Necessity; Duress; Civilian Command Responsibility; War Crimes; Violations of laws and customs of war; Scope of responsibilities; Identification of accused; Death from natural causes
Remarks
1 Defence lawyer represented 9 Co-Accused.
See other related cases, for example, Case No. WO/235/954, WO/235/1036, WO/235/905, WO/235/1028.
See other related cases, for example, Case No. WO/235/954, WO/235/1036, WO/235/905, WO/235/1028.