To access the complete case file, click here
Case No.
WO235/1044
Accused
Col. Nakano Junichi (D1)
Capt. Imamura Yachashi (D2)
Lt. Wakasugi Jiro (D3)
Court
Military Court for the Trial of War Criminals No. 7
Charge
First Charge (Against all Accused)
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, in that they at and near KARENKO, FORMOSA, between 1st July 1942 and 30th June 1943, the accused Col. NAKAO as Commandant Prisoner-of-War Camps Group, the accused Captain IMAMURA as Commandant of No. 4 Branch Camp and the accused Lieutenant. WAKASUGI as a member of the staff of the said Camp, being responsible for the well-being of all British and Allied Prisoners-of-War and civilian internees in the said No. 4 Branch Camp, was in violation of the laws and usages of war concerned in the illtreatment of Prisoners-of-War and civilian internees resulting in physical suffering to many of them.”
Second Charge (Against D1)
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, in that at Formosa between July 1942 and June 1943, the accused as Commandant Prisoner-of-War Camps Group and as such responsible for the well-being of all British and Allied Prisoners-of-War and civilian internees in Formosa, was in violation of the laws and usages of war concerned in the illtreatment of Prisoners-of-War and internees at No. 1 Branch Camp KINKASEKI, No. 2 Branch Camp TAICHU, No. 3 Branch Camp HEITO, H.Q. Camp at DAICHOKU and at various in transit resulting in the deaths of a number of the said Prisoners-of-War, and in physical suffering to many Prisoners-of-War, and civilian internees.”
Third Charge (Against D2)
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, at or near SHIRAKAWA, FORMOSA, between 1st June and 31st December 1943, whilst Commandant of No. 4 Branch and as such responsible for the well-being of all British and Allied Prisoners-of-War and civilian internees in the said Camp, was in violation of the laws and usages of war concerned in the illtreatment of Prisoners-of-War and civilian internees causing suffering to many of them.”
Fourth Charge (Against D2)
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, at or near KOKUTSU, FORMOSA, between 16th May 1945 and 31st May 1945, whilst Commandant of No. 1 Branch and as such responsible for the well-being of all British and Allied Prisoners-of-War in the said Camp, was in violation of the laws and usages of war concerned in the illtreatment of Prisoners-of-War causing suffering to many of them.”
Fifth Charge (Against D3)
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, at TROKU, FORMOSA, between 1st November 1944 and 25th April 1945, whilst Commandant at TROKU Transit Camp and as such responsible for the well-being of all British and Allied Prisoners-of-War in the said Camp, was in violation of the laws and usages of war concerned in the illtreatment of Prisoners-of-War causing suffering to many of the said Prisoners-of-War.”
Sixth Charge (Against D3)
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, at SIRAKAWA, FORMOSA, between 25th April 1945 and 5th September 1945, whilst a member of the staff of the No. 4 Branch Camp was, contrary to the laws and usages of war concerned in the illtreatment of Prisoners-of-War causing suffering to many of the said Prisoners-of-War.”
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, in that they at and near KARENKO, FORMOSA, between 1st July 1942 and 30th June 1943, the accused Col. NAKAO as Commandant Prisoner-of-War Camps Group, the accused Captain IMAMURA as Commandant of No. 4 Branch Camp and the accused Lieutenant. WAKASUGI as a member of the staff of the said Camp, being responsible for the well-being of all British and Allied Prisoners-of-War and civilian internees in the said No. 4 Branch Camp, was in violation of the laws and usages of war concerned in the illtreatment of Prisoners-of-War and civilian internees resulting in physical suffering to many of them.”
Second Charge (Against D1)
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, in that at Formosa between July 1942 and June 1943, the accused as Commandant Prisoner-of-War Camps Group and as such responsible for the well-being of all British and Allied Prisoners-of-War and civilian internees in Formosa, was in violation of the laws and usages of war concerned in the illtreatment of Prisoners-of-War and internees at No. 1 Branch Camp KINKASEKI, No. 2 Branch Camp TAICHU, No. 3 Branch Camp HEITO, H.Q. Camp at DAICHOKU and at various in transit resulting in the deaths of a number of the said Prisoners-of-War, and in physical suffering to many Prisoners-of-War, and civilian internees.”
Third Charge (Against D2)
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, at or near SHIRAKAWA, FORMOSA, between 1st June and 31st December 1943, whilst Commandant of No. 4 Branch and as such responsible for the well-being of all British and Allied Prisoners-of-War and civilian internees in the said Camp, was in violation of the laws and usages of war concerned in the illtreatment of Prisoners-of-War and civilian internees causing suffering to many of them.”
Fourth Charge (Against D2)
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, at or near KOKUTSU, FORMOSA, between 16th May 1945 and 31st May 1945, whilst Commandant of No. 1 Branch and as such responsible for the well-being of all British and Allied Prisoners-of-War in the said Camp, was in violation of the laws and usages of war concerned in the illtreatment of Prisoners-of-War causing suffering to many of them.”
Fifth Charge (Against D3)
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, at TROKU, FORMOSA, between 1st November 1944 and 25th April 1945, whilst Commandant at TROKU Transit Camp and as such responsible for the well-being of all British and Allied Prisoners-of-War in the said Camp, was in violation of the laws and usages of war concerned in the illtreatment of Prisoners-of-War causing suffering to many of the said Prisoners-of-War.”
Sixth Charge (Against D3)
“COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, at SIRAKAWA, FORMOSA, between 25th April 1945 and 5th September 1945, whilst a member of the staff of the No. 4 Branch Camp was, contrary to the laws and usages of war concerned in the illtreatment of Prisoners-of-War causing suffering to many of the said Prisoners-of-War.”
Background
D1 was in command of a group of Prisoner-of-War (‘POW’) Camps in Formosa (later succeeded by Sazawa – WO 235/1029). Under his command there were five operating POW Camps. He was in charge of the third, Heito Camp.
D2 was a subordinate of D1, and was in charge of the fourth, Karenko Camp, later the Shirakawa Camp and also the Kokutsu Camp.
D3 worked under D1 and D2 at Karenko Camp and was in charge of the Troku Camp (a transit camp) and later the Sirakawa Camp as well.
D2 was a subordinate of D1, and was in charge of the fourth, Karenko Camp, later the Shirakawa Camp and also the Kokutsu Camp.
D3 worked under D1 and D2 at Karenko Camp and was in charge of the Troku Camp (a transit camp) and later the Sirakawa Camp as well.
Allegations
The Prosecution relied on both testimony of four ex-POWs also affidavits by high ranking officers to establish its case.
Examples of ill-treatment included beatings, wrongful confinement and parades, punishment (for not promising not to escape or to write to their own government to treat the Japanese POWs better). insufficient food which was also of a low quality, inadequate medical supplies and bad sanitation. All these allegedly caused many of the POWs to suffer from diseases and die. POWs were also forced to work regardless of their health condition. It was alleged that around 45 POWs died in Heito Camp during the relevant period.
Examples of ill-treatment included beatings, wrongful confinement and parades, punishment (for not promising not to escape or to write to their own government to treat the Japanese POWs better). insufficient food which was also of a low quality, inadequate medical supplies and bad sanitation. All these allegedly caused many of the POWs to suffer from diseases and die. POWs were also forced to work regardless of their health condition. It was alleged that around 45 POWs died in Heito Camp during the relevant period.
Defence
The Defence submitted that for criminal liability to attach to the Accused, “there must be either wrong intent or negligence”.
On Command Responsibility, it argued that in the view of the Japanese Army, “if a superior did all he could to prevent the commission of such criminal offences by doing his best to supervise, train or issue instructions or orders, he would not be held responsible, while if the superior had failed to take proper steps which he should have done, the consequences would be otherwise”.
On the point of Superior Orders, the Defence argued that “in the Japanese army the subordinates were bound absolutely and unconditionally to obey superior orders”. The notion of an unlawful superior order was only imposed in the British Military Manual in 1944 and not before. There was reference to the Nuremburg Judgement on the principle of nullum crimen sine lege.
D1 denied that he ever saw or had any knowledge of any ill-treatment. The food and medical supplies were provided by other authorities, over which he had no control. He visited the camp occasionally and did not see anything particularly wrong. He also denied that Col. Bunker died of starvation or that Red Cross parcels were pilfered.
D2 admitted that there were beatings by the guards and also that he himself beat some of the POWs on one occasion. He also admitted that he beat Maj. Gen. Sitwell. The third accused stated that he heard of beatings taking place and admitted the beating of a POW known as Barton.
Both D2 and D3 stated that they did their best as regards to food and medical supplies and also started vegetable gardens for prisoners. One Defence witness stated that only one POW died during the office of tD1.
On Command Responsibility, it argued that in the view of the Japanese Army, “if a superior did all he could to prevent the commission of such criminal offences by doing his best to supervise, train or issue instructions or orders, he would not be held responsible, while if the superior had failed to take proper steps which he should have done, the consequences would be otherwise”.
On the point of Superior Orders, the Defence argued that “in the Japanese army the subordinates were bound absolutely and unconditionally to obey superior orders”. The notion of an unlawful superior order was only imposed in the British Military Manual in 1944 and not before. There was reference to the Nuremburg Judgement on the principle of nullum crimen sine lege.
D1 denied that he ever saw or had any knowledge of any ill-treatment. The food and medical supplies were provided by other authorities, over which he had no control. He visited the camp occasionally and did not see anything particularly wrong. He also denied that Col. Bunker died of starvation or that Red Cross parcels were pilfered.
D2 admitted that there were beatings by the guards and also that he himself beat some of the POWs on one occasion. He also admitted that he beat Maj. Gen. Sitwell. The third accused stated that he heard of beatings taking place and admitted the beating of a POW known as Barton.
Both D2 and D3 stated that they did their best as regards to food and medical supplies and also started vegetable gardens for prisoners. One Defence witness stated that only one POW died during the office of tD1.
Prosecutor
Major D.G. McGregor (Solicitor, Black Watch)
Defence Counsel
Mr. Takano Junjiro (Japanese Barrister)
Judges
President: Lt. Col. N. G. Wait (Intelligence Corps)
Members: Major A Clayworth (Royal Artillery); Capt. R.B.R. Gorely (King’s Royal Rifle Corps)
Members: Major A Clayworth (Royal Artillery); Capt. R.B.R. Gorely (King’s Royal Rifle Corps)
Advisory Officer
Capt. J.N. Whitehorn (Intelligence Corps); Lieut. D.C.J. Banfield (the Buffs)
Prosecution Witnesses
Robert V. Gibbons(War Crimes Unit, HQ Land Forces, Hong Kong)
R.C.M. Comfort(Army Officer, British Army; Ex-prisoner, No.3 Branch Camp, Heito, Formosa.)
Major J.T.N. Cross(Officer Commanding No. 14 War Crimes Team; Ex-Prisoner of War in Kinkaseki Camp)
Tsutada Itsuo(Interpreter, Stanley Prison)
Warrant Officer J.O. Edwards(Warrant Officer, First Class, British Army, War Crimes, Hong Kong)
Kwok Po-Man(Chief Clerk, No. 14 War Crimes Investigation Team)
Defence Witnesses
Col. Nakano Junichi(First Accused, Chief Commandant POW Camps, Taiwan.)
Imamura Yayohachi(Second Accused, Member of the Staff, Karenko Camp)
Wakasugi Jiro(Third Accused, Member of the Staff, Karenko Camp)
Lt. Kuwahara Hiroshi(Army Lieutenant, Adjutant to the Chief Commandant, Headquarter, Taiwan POW Camps.)
Capt. Yoshimi Taneyoshi(Surgeon, Surgical Section, Taihoku Army Hospital)
Capt. Kojima Toshio(Army Captain, Branch Camp Commandant of the No. 3 Branch Camp in Heito.)
Capt. Matsumura Yoshio(Medical Orderly, Karenko Camp.)
Major Hirao Yoshio(Gendarme Major)
Capt. John Neville Whitehorn(Advisory Officer, No. 7 War Crimes Court, Hong Kong.)
George Tong(Interpreter, No. 7 War Crimes Court, Hong Kong)
Trial Dates
10-Apr-1947
07-May-1947
08-May-1947
09-May-1947
10-May-1947
11-May-1947
12-May-1947
13-May-1947
14-May-1947
15-May-1947
16-May-1947
Judgement Date
28-Jul-1941
Judgement Confirmation Date
21-Oct-1947
Judgement Promulgation Date
27-Oct-1947
Judgement
Held:
1. D1 and D2 were guilty of the first charge;
2. D1 was guilty of the second charge;
3. D2 was guilty of the third and fourth charges;
4. D3 was not guilty of the first and sixth charges but guilty on the fifth charge.
1. D1 and D2 were guilty of the first charge;
2. D1 was guilty of the second charge;
3. D2 was guilty of the third and fourth charges;
4. D3 was not guilty of the first and sixth charges but guilty on the fifth charge.
Petition
D1 petitioned. He argued that he was too busy getting the POW Camps ready and it was impossible for him to know the true situation. He was only able to make 3 visits to the Branch Camp. He had to rely on untrained subordinates.
D2 petitioned:
1. Within his sphere of authority (which was to “carry out the details of administration in accordance with the regulations”), he had not neglected his duty in any way.
2. The charge against him was too vague for him to identify what was actually proved against him.
3. All allegations against him were due to misunderstanding of his position and failure to realize that he was trying to help the POWs.
On 7 October 1947, the Judge Advocate advised that the petitions be dismissed and findings/sentences be dismissed [N.H. New, Brigadier, DJAG, ALFSEA].
The Judge Advocate observed the reliance on affidavits in this case, notably that the cases against D1, D3, D5 and D6 were entirely based on affidavits. "In general it appears that these affidavits are substantially true and many of the deponents corroborate one another". There was some concern about Exhibit TT, the affidavit of Capt Lowman. Even allowing for some exaggeration, the Judge Advocate concluded, "there was ample evidence to support the findings of guilty and the sentences to be confirmed. The findings of not guilty do not of course require confirmation".
This was a case with some delay. The Judge Advocate found that "it is not apparent why there was so long a delay in submitting the proceedings to this office for pre-confirmation advice, particularly as, owing to numerous adjournments, the trial itself was unusually protracted". No recommendations were made in respect of this.
D2 petitioned:
1. Within his sphere of authority (which was to “carry out the details of administration in accordance with the regulations”), he had not neglected his duty in any way.
2. The charge against him was too vague for him to identify what was actually proved against him.
3. All allegations against him were due to misunderstanding of his position and failure to realize that he was trying to help the POWs.
On 7 October 1947, the Judge Advocate advised that the petitions be dismissed and findings/sentences be dismissed [N.H. New, Brigadier, DJAG, ALFSEA].
The Judge Advocate observed the reliance on affidavits in this case, notably that the cases against D1, D3, D5 and D6 were entirely based on affidavits. "In general it appears that these affidavits are substantially true and many of the deponents corroborate one another". There was some concern about Exhibit TT, the affidavit of Capt Lowman. Even allowing for some exaggeration, the Judge Advocate concluded, "there was ample evidence to support the findings of guilty and the sentences to be confirmed. The findings of not guilty do not of course require confirmation".
This was a case with some delay. The Judge Advocate found that "it is not apparent why there was so long a delay in submitting the proceedings to this office for pre-confirmation advice, particularly as, owing to numerous adjournments, the trial itself was unusually protracted". No recommendations were made in respect of this.
Sentence Imposed
D1: 20 years imprisonment;
D2: 15 years imprisonment;
D3: 1 year imprisonment.
D2: 15 years imprisonment;
D3: 1 year imprisonment.
Keywords
Formosa; Prisoners of War; Prisoner of War Camp; Failure to provide adequate food and/or care; Poor conditions of detention; Failure to provide adequate medical care; Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment; Red Cross Parcels; Starvation; Sick or wounded; "concerned in"; Ordered; Superior Orders; Death from natural causes; Scope of Responsibilities; War Crimes; Violations of laws and customs of war; British Military Manual
Remarks
Link to the other Formosa cases.