To access the complete case file, click here
Case No.
WO235/1093
Accused
Colonel Kanazawa Asao
Court
Military Court for the Trial of War Criminals No. 7
Charge
First Charge: Committing a War Crime
“in that he, at Hong Kong, between the 10th Feb. 1945 and the 15th Aug. 1945, was, in violation of the laws and usages of war, concerned in the illtreatment of prisoners in the custody of the Kempeitai causing the death of some and physical sufferings to others”
Second Charge: Committing a War Crime
“in that he, at Hong Kong, between the 1st June and 31st Aug. 1945 as Commander of the Kempeitai, was, in violation of the laws and usages of war, concerned in the illtreatment of civilian residents, resulting in the death of many of the said civilians and in physical suffering to others, which illtreatment included deportation from Hong Kong aforesaid.”
“in that he, at Hong Kong, between the 10th Feb. 1945 and the 15th Aug. 1945, was, in violation of the laws and usages of war, concerned in the illtreatment of prisoners in the custody of the Kempeitai causing the death of some and physical sufferings to others”
Second Charge: Committing a War Crime
“in that he, at Hong Kong, between the 1st June and 31st Aug. 1945 as Commander of the Kempeitai, was, in violation of the laws and usages of war, concerned in the illtreatment of civilian residents, resulting in the death of many of the said civilians and in physical suffering to others, which illtreatment included deportation from Hong Kong aforesaid.”
Background
The Accused was the Commissioner of Police and succeeded Col. Noma as Chief of the Kempeitai in Hong Kong (see Case No. 999 - Col. Noma Kennosuke). Ill-treatment such as torture and lack of food, and killings, were alleged in the places of detention under the Accused's control.
Allegations
The Accused was alleged to have ordered the ill-treatment and killing of prisoners in the custody of the Kempeitai, and that he knew of their activities and either connived in permitting the alleged acts or failed to take adequate measures to prevent their occurrence.
Concerning the second charge, the Prosecution alleged that arbitrary and indiscriminate arrests of civilian residents were carried out under the order of the Accused. A “deportation scheme” was also ordered by the Accused which caused a lot of “indescribable suffering” and deaths.
Concerning the second charge, the Prosecution alleged that arbitrary and indiscriminate arrests of civilian residents were carried out under the order of the Accused. A “deportation scheme” was also ordered by the Accused which caused a lot of “indescribable suffering” and deaths.
Defence
The Defence started by complaining that the charge was vague, in that it did not “state specifically to what appointment the Accused held during the period stated”.
The Defence pointed out contradictions in the testimony of witnesses. It also claimed that the Prosecution failed to show that the cause of death was due to ill-treatment for which the Accused was responsible.
With respect to the power and responsibility of the Accused, the Defence argued that the Accused received orders from Major-General Shigeto, Commander-in-chief of the Kempeitai of South China Expeditionary Force. He could not have replaced the officers in the camp even if he knew of the ill-treatment committed by them. He also had to take orders from the “Governor of Hong Kong” at the time. This, the Defence argued, meant that he was not the one to be held responsible for the “deportation scheme”.
Furthermore, the lack of food and other supplies were not the responsibility of the Accused.
The Defence pointed out contradictions in the testimony of witnesses. It also claimed that the Prosecution failed to show that the cause of death was due to ill-treatment for which the Accused was responsible.
With respect to the power and responsibility of the Accused, the Defence argued that the Accused received orders from Major-General Shigeto, Commander-in-chief of the Kempeitai of South China Expeditionary Force. He could not have replaced the officers in the camp even if he knew of the ill-treatment committed by them. He also had to take orders from the “Governor of Hong Kong” at the time. This, the Defence argued, meant that he was not the one to be held responsible for the “deportation scheme”.
Furthermore, the lack of food and other supplies were not the responsibility of the Accused.
Prosecutor
Major R.C. Lai (Dept. of the JAG, India, Barrister-at-Law)
Defence Counsel
Mr Kawanami Shigekichi (a member of the Bar Association of Osaka)
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
Lieut D.C.J. Banfield (The Buffs)
Prosecution Witnesses
P.J.N Purshotomdas(Unknown)
B.J. Young(Accountant)
Kartar Singh(Unknown)
I.S.A. Curreem(Bookkeeper)
H.P. Paul(Unknown)
Choi Lai Ching(Unknown)
Pang Iu Ki(Medical Practitioner)
Kishino Metha Lokoomall(Merchant)
KKS Parmar(Merchant)
Chan Lut Chau(Unknown)
Dr. P.T. Wu(Physician)
Yuen Man Ching(Unknown)
Lau Hei Lit(Shop owner)
Mohammed Khan(Motor Driver)
A.M. Omar(Unknown)
Ip Tin Shang(Chief Interpreter)
Yeung Kar Sing(Clerk)
Wong Chor Ki(Motion Pictures)
Cheung Wing Lok(Farmer)
Alfred Ho Siew Um(Secretary)
Osman Mohammed Omar(Unknown)
Arthur Tsang(Merchant)
Law Hin Kwong(Student)
Fan Kwok Leung(Farmer)
Kwok Chan(Banker)
Cheng Chung Wing(Insurance)
Kan Man(Insurance)
Li Kwai Sum(Unknown)
Lo Tam Sang(Driver)
L.T. Yeoh Trik Ee(Intelligence Officer)
Wong To Shing(Writer)
Ng Pak Hae(Businessman (fitting water pipes))
Capt F.V. Collision(Captain)
Defence Witnesses
Kanazawa Asao(Colonel)
Shiozawa Kunio(Major)
Capt Yatagai Sukeo(Captain)
Capt C.E. Watson(Captain)
L.T. M.J.L Thomas(Lieutenant)
Trial Dates
26-Sep-1947
27-Sep-1947
29-Sep-1947
01-Oct-1947
02-Oct-1947
03-Oct-1947
04-Oct-1947
06-Oct-1947
07-Oct-1947
08-Oct-1947
09-Oct-1947
11-Oct-1947
13-Oct-1947
14-Oct-1947
15-Oct-1947
16-Oct-1947
17-Oct-1947
18-Oct-1947
20-Oct-1947
21-Oct-1947
22-Oct-1947
23-Oct-1947
30-Oct-1947
Judgement Date
30-Oct-1947
Judgement
Guilty
Petition
Col. Kanazawa submitted a Petition on 13 November 1947, on the ground that evidence was insufficient. The Judge Advocate [unidentified Colonel, DJAG, Far East Land Forces, 20 January 1948] observed that it did not raise anything that had not already been considered at the trial.
In reviewing the case, the Judge Advocate observed as follows. “So far as the first charge is concerned there was no evidence before the Court to prove that the accused actively ordered or instigated his subordinates towards the illtreatment of persons in their custody. It was however established beyond doubt that during the whole of the accused tenure of office (6 months) deplorable conditions and frequent illtreatment of prisoners prevailed. There was I think just enough evidence for the Court to be able to infer that the accused could not have been ignorant of what was going on and was thus “concerned in” the illtreatment and its results by his failure effectively to exercise his authority to stop it. I advise therefore that the finding on this charge be confirmed”.
“As regards the finding of guilty on the second charge I am of opinion that it should NOT be confirmed. There was nothing inherently illegal in the deportation of undesirable residents from Hong Kong and as has already been pointed out the whole scheme was launched by the Governor with the qualified approval of the more responsible members of the population. There is no doubt that abuses occurred and that the conditions in which some of the deportees lived were bad. I am bound to say however that the weight of the evidence so far as it concerns the accused’s own actions in the matter tends to prove that he did all that could reasonably be expected of him to ensure that the deportations were carried out humanely and to meet the wishes of the local population.”
The Judge Advocate considered the sentence to be too severe and advised the Commander of Land Forces, Hong Kong, as follows:
“If you agree to withhold confirmation on the second charge you should consider commuting the death sentence to some less severe punishment. As I have already pointed out the case against the accused even on the first charge was comparatively weak and I do not think he deserves to be hanged on the basis of that charge alone. A stigma clearly attaches to any one who has held high rank in the Kempeitai and/or the gendarmerie and the fact that the accused succeeded to the command formerly held by the notorious Colonel Noma (who was tried and sentenced to death in April last year) no doubt had its effect on the minds of the Court. I would point out however that the case against NOMA was very much more damning than that against the present accused not only because Noma had held the command for over three years but also because he was proved to have personally ordered the illegal execution of at least one batch of innocent civilians.”
In reviewing the case, the Judge Advocate observed as follows. “So far as the first charge is concerned there was no evidence before the Court to prove that the accused actively ordered or instigated his subordinates towards the illtreatment of persons in their custody. It was however established beyond doubt that during the whole of the accused tenure of office (6 months) deplorable conditions and frequent illtreatment of prisoners prevailed. There was I think just enough evidence for the Court to be able to infer that the accused could not have been ignorant of what was going on and was thus “concerned in” the illtreatment and its results by his failure effectively to exercise his authority to stop it. I advise therefore that the finding on this charge be confirmed”.
“As regards the finding of guilty on the second charge I am of opinion that it should NOT be confirmed. There was nothing inherently illegal in the deportation of undesirable residents from Hong Kong and as has already been pointed out the whole scheme was launched by the Governor with the qualified approval of the more responsible members of the population. There is no doubt that abuses occurred and that the conditions in which some of the deportees lived were bad. I am bound to say however that the weight of the evidence so far as it concerns the accused’s own actions in the matter tends to prove that he did all that could reasonably be expected of him to ensure that the deportations were carried out humanely and to meet the wishes of the local population.”
The Judge Advocate considered the sentence to be too severe and advised the Commander of Land Forces, Hong Kong, as follows:
“If you agree to withhold confirmation on the second charge you should consider commuting the death sentence to some less severe punishment. As I have already pointed out the case against the accused even on the first charge was comparatively weak and I do not think he deserves to be hanged on the basis of that charge alone. A stigma clearly attaches to any one who has held high rank in the Kempeitai and/or the gendarmerie and the fact that the accused succeeded to the command formerly held by the notorious Colonel Noma (who was tried and sentenced to death in April last year) no doubt had its effect on the minds of the Court. I would point out however that the case against NOMA was very much more damning than that against the present accused not only because Noma had held the command for over three years but also because he was proved to have personally ordered the illegal execution of at least one batch of innocent civilians.”
Sentence Imposed
Sentenced to death by hanging. Executed at Stanley Prison, Hong Kong, on 17 February 1948.
Keywords
Hong Kong; Kempeitai; Gendarme/Gendarmes/Gendarmerie; Civilians; Place of Detention; South China Expeditionary Force; "concerned in"; Unlawful Killings; Unlawful arrest and/or detention; Torture; Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment; Neglect; Failure to provide adequate food and/or care; Poor conditions of detention; Ordering; Military Command Responsibility; Superior Orders; War Crimes; Violations of laws and customs of war
Remarks
Link to the case of his predecessor, Colonel Noma Kennosuke (WO/235/999), and all Hong Kong Kempeitai cases concerning events between 10 February 1945 and 15 August 1945.
The Judge Advocate’s strong recommendation for commutation of sentence from the death penalty was not followed.
The Judge Advocate’s strong recommendation for commutation of sentence from the death penalty was not followed.