To access the complete case file, click here
Case No.
WO235/1098
Accused
Major Hirao Yoshio
Court
Military Court for the Trial of War Criminals No. 7
Charge
Committing a War Crime
“in that he at Kowloon in the Colony of Hong Kong between the 8th Sept. 1943 and the 15th of August 1945, as Commanding Officer of the Kowloon Kempeitai of the Imperial Japanese Army, was in violation of the Laws and Usages of War, concerned in the inhumane treatment by his subordinate staff, of Chinese and other civilians held in the custody of the said Kempeitai HQ and some of its substations which inhumane treatment consisted of killing some and ill-treating others.
“in that he at Kowloon in the Colony of Hong Kong between the 8th Sept. 1943 and the 15th of August 1945, as Commanding Officer of the Kowloon Kempeitai of the Imperial Japanese Army, was in violation of the Laws and Usages of War, concerned in the inhumane treatment by his subordinate staff, of Chinese and other civilians held in the custody of the said Kempeitai HQ and some of its substations which inhumane treatment consisted of killing some and ill-treating others.
Background
The Accused was the Commanding Officer of the Kowloon Kempeitai. Outside of his own HQ, he inspected the sub-stations in Kowloon and the New Territories regularly and kept in touch with subordinates by telephone. In these places, there was alleged to be inhuman treatment consisting of killing some and ill-treating others.
Note: this Accused also testified at the trial of Col. Noma and in the trials of the many of his subordinates who stood trial (see the Kowloon Kempeitai cases).
Note: this Accused also testified at the trial of Col. Noma and in the trials of the many of his subordinates who stood trial (see the Kowloon Kempeitai cases).
Allegations
According to the Prosecution, there were a number of incidents of ill-treatment that were committed by the Kempeitai under the command of the Accused. One of the incidents that Prosecution alleged concerned the ill-treatment and an alleged be-heading of 10 Chinese suspects.
Defence
The Defence started by arguing that responsibility for the ill-treatment and killing should be borne by his subordinates.
The Defence did not challenge the claim that there was torture in the Kempeitai stations, but contested the admissibility and reliability of witness testimonies. For example, he argued that some witness statements were hearsay – that they testified that they saw marks and scars on people, but it was not proved that they were caused by ill-treatment as they did not actually see the tortures being carried out.
For those who claimed to have been tortured, most of the facts were exaggerated. For example, the size of the pole used for beating was overstated. On further examination, a witness also admitted that he was beaten only once.
On unlawful deaths, the Defence also challenged the admissibility and reliability of witness statements. The Defence mainly argued that the Accused had no knowledge of executions. For example, in relation to one allegation, he claimed not to have been able to see the blood stains on the clothes of an executioner from a certain distance.
Also, the Defence alleged that the most damning evidence, provided by Leung Sui Chuen and Cheng Sing, was either false or self-contradictory.
The Defence did not challenge the claim that there was torture in the Kempeitai stations, but contested the admissibility and reliability of witness testimonies. For example, he argued that some witness statements were hearsay – that they testified that they saw marks and scars on people, but it was not proved that they were caused by ill-treatment as they did not actually see the tortures being carried out.
For those who claimed to have been tortured, most of the facts were exaggerated. For example, the size of the pole used for beating was overstated. On further examination, a witness also admitted that he was beaten only once.
On unlawful deaths, the Defence also challenged the admissibility and reliability of witness statements. The Defence mainly argued that the Accused had no knowledge of executions. For example, in relation to one allegation, he claimed not to have been able to see the blood stains on the clothes of an executioner from a certain distance.
Also, the Defence alleged that the most damning evidence, provided by Leung Sui Chuen and Cheng Sing, was either false or self-contradictory.
Prosecutor
Major R.C. Lai (Dept. of the JAG, India, Barrister at law)
Defence Counsel
Mr. Tanaka Yutaka (Japanese Barrister)
Judges
President: Lt. Col. N.G. Wait (Intelligence Corps)
Members: Major A. Clayworth (Royal Army), Capt. R.B.R. Gorely (King’s Royal Rifle Corps).
Members: Major A. Clayworth (Royal Army), Capt. R.B.R. Gorely (King’s Royal Rifle Corps).
Advisory Officer
2nd/Liet. G.L. Falkoff (The Buffs)
Prosecution Witnesses
Joseph Venpin (Employed during Japanese occupation, job unknown)
Jerome Edward Law (Interpreter)
Joseph Law (Employee in Kowloon District Gendarmerie HQ)
Sheng Sung (Prisoner)
Kent Ching (Clerk)
Tang Mo Kwai (Farmer)
Lam Wah (Farmer)
Shing Hing Lung (Fisherman)
Tsang For-Piu (Clerk)
Dr. Renalto Emilio Alveres (Assistant Pathologist)
Siu Ying (Baker)
Jules A. Siron (French typist)
Wong Fook (Detective Sergeant)
Lam Siu-chuen (China Underwriters Company)
Lo Hang (Unknown)
Chan Shing (Businessman)
Capt. F.V. Collison (Captain)
Defence Witnesses
Hirao Yoshio (Gendarmerie Major)
Kanazawa Asao (Gendarmerie Lieut. Colonel)
Shiozawa Kunio (Gendarme Major)
Trial Dates
04-Sep-1947
05-Sep-1947
06-Sep-1947
08-Sep-1947
09-Sep-1947
10-Sep-1947
11-Sep-1947
12-Sep-1947
13-Sep-1947
15-Sep-1947
16-Sep-1947
03-Nov-1947
04-Nov-1947
05-Nov-1947
06-Nov-1947
07-Nov-1947
08-Nov-1947
11-Nov-1947
14-Nov-1947
Judgement Date
14-Nov-1947
Judgement
Guilty of all charges
Petition
The Accused submitted a Petition. It raised no new issues, according to the Judge Advocate [unidentified Colonel, DJAG, Far East Land Forces, 19 January 1948]. The Petition, according to the Judge Advocate, emphasized that he had “no discretionary powers, but was compelled to act in blind obedience to the orders of his C-in-C, Col Noma, and that whilst admitting administrative responsibility for the well-being of prisoners in his custody he disclaims criminal responsibility for the offences of his many subordinates whom he tried his best to supervise and control whilst handicapped by shortage of assistants, lack of transport, and disrupted telephonic communications.” The Judge Advocate advised dismissal of the Petition and the confirmation of findings and sentencing.
There was also a supporting Petition from Sgt. Nagahara Masakichi, said by the Judge Advocate to be irrelevant to the issues.
In reviewing the case, the Judge Advocate observed as follows. “The evidence discloses such similarity in purpose and mode of interrogation by accused’s subordinates of suspects in custody in different places under his command regularly visited by him, including his own HQ, as to lead to the conclusion that he knew of the illtreatment but did nothing to stop it.” At his own HQ, the evidence shows that “the accused must heard the screams of victims undergoing torture, that he frequently inspected his HQ compound where he must have seen the miserable plight of suspects confined in cells, and that on 8 December 1944 ten Chinese suspects were taken from these cells, bound, placed in a truck, driven to a secluded spot where they were never seen again. There is circumstantial evidence that they were illegally beheaded by accused’s subordinates and that accused knew of it. Blood was seen on the tunics of two of the escorting party on its return and a blood stained sword was handed over by one of the party to a superior order at the HQ in the presence of PW1 (Joseph VENPIN) who testified that a conversation ensued which indicated that the sword had just been used for beheading. PWI testified that on the day in question he saw an order approved by accused and Col Noma his superior officer, relating to the execution.”
As for the Accused’s testimony (on oath), the Judge Advocate reported that “At first he maintained that illtreatment and tortures as alleged could not possibly have occurred during his tenure in office, but under cross-examination he expressed the belief that the Prosecution witnesses had exaggerated the accounts of tortures.” The Accused denied any deaths in custody either through natural or unnatural causes, but the Prosecution showed that the witness’ testimony was inconsistent with what he said in the Noma trial.
In respect of sentencing, the Judge Advocate advised the Commander of Land Forces, Hong Kong as follows: “I suggest that you should consider commuting it to something less severe than the death penalty. The only evidence as to the accused’s knowledge of killings was that of PW1 (Joseph Venpin). This witness worked for the Japanese at the material times and must therefore be regarded to some extent as an accomplice. Moreover he is obviously a pretty despicable character and although the court were entitled to accept his evidence I am bound to say that I do not think much reliance should be placed on it in the absence of any corroboration on this important point.”
There was also a supporting Petition from Sgt. Nagahara Masakichi, said by the Judge Advocate to be irrelevant to the issues.
In reviewing the case, the Judge Advocate observed as follows. “The evidence discloses such similarity in purpose and mode of interrogation by accused’s subordinates of suspects in custody in different places under his command regularly visited by him, including his own HQ, as to lead to the conclusion that he knew of the illtreatment but did nothing to stop it.” At his own HQ, the evidence shows that “the accused must heard the screams of victims undergoing torture, that he frequently inspected his HQ compound where he must have seen the miserable plight of suspects confined in cells, and that on 8 December 1944 ten Chinese suspects were taken from these cells, bound, placed in a truck, driven to a secluded spot where they were never seen again. There is circumstantial evidence that they were illegally beheaded by accused’s subordinates and that accused knew of it. Blood was seen on the tunics of two of the escorting party on its return and a blood stained sword was handed over by one of the party to a superior order at the HQ in the presence of PW1 (Joseph VENPIN) who testified that a conversation ensued which indicated that the sword had just been used for beheading. PWI testified that on the day in question he saw an order approved by accused and Col Noma his superior officer, relating to the execution.”
As for the Accused’s testimony (on oath), the Judge Advocate reported that “At first he maintained that illtreatment and tortures as alleged could not possibly have occurred during his tenure in office, but under cross-examination he expressed the belief that the Prosecution witnesses had exaggerated the accounts of tortures.” The Accused denied any deaths in custody either through natural or unnatural causes, but the Prosecution showed that the witness’ testimony was inconsistent with what he said in the Noma trial.
In respect of sentencing, the Judge Advocate advised the Commander of Land Forces, Hong Kong as follows: “I suggest that you should consider commuting it to something less severe than the death penalty. The only evidence as to the accused’s knowledge of killings was that of PW1 (Joseph Venpin). This witness worked for the Japanese at the material times and must therefore be regarded to some extent as an accomplice. Moreover he is obviously a pretty despicable character and although the court were entitled to accept his evidence I am bound to say that I do not think much reliance should be placed on it in the absence of any corroboration on this important point.”
Sentence Imposed
Sentenced to death by hanging. Executed at Stanley Prison, Hong Kong, on 24 February 1948.
Keywords
Hong Kong; Kempeitai; Gendarme/Gendarmes/Gendarmerie; Place of Detention; "concerned in"; Military Command Responsibility; Civilians; War Crimes; Violations of laws and customs of war; Torture; Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment; Poor conditions of detention; Failure to provide adequate food or care; Unlawful Killing; Arbitrary or summary punishment; Hearsay
Remarks
See all Kowloon Kempeitai cases from 8 September 1943 to 15 August 1945.