To access the complete case file, click here
Case No.
WO235/1116
Accused
Lieutenant-General Kinoshita Kiichi (D1)
Sergeant Yoshida Bunzo (D2)
Court
Military Court for the Trial of War Criminals [unknown]
Charge Date
18-Oct-1948
Charge
First charge
Committing a War Crime (against D1, D2)
“in that at Shanghai between about the 1st July 1943 and 31st August 1943 the accused KINOSHITA Eiichi then Major General Commanding the Shanghai District Kempei-Tai, and the accused YOSHIDA Bunzo then a Corporal in the Foreign Section of the Special Branch at the Headquarters of the Western Branch of the Shanghai Kempei-Tai on Jessfield Road, were, in violation of the laws and usages of war, concerned in the ill-treatment of civilian residents of Shanghai and in particular of John Martin Watson, William Hutton and Hans Rechlim, causing them physical suffering and resulting in the death of the said William Hutton.”
Second charge (against D1)
Committing a War Crime
“in that he at Shanghai in or about the month of November 1942, was, in violation of the laws and usages of war, concerned in the ill-treatment of a Chinese male, VONG, a civilian resident of Shanghai which ill-treatment resulted in the death of VONG aforesaid.”
Third charge (against D1)
Committing a War Crime
“in that he at Shanghai between the 6th August 1942 and 29th November 1944 as head of the Shanghai Keimpei-Tai and as such responsible for the control of Kempei personnel and the management of the places of detention at Shanghai was in violation of the laws and usages of war concerned in the ill-treatment of civilian residents of Shanghai and in particular the Reverend W.H. Hudspeth, Henry Forsythe Pringle; Edwin Arthur Thompson; Kenneth William Johnstone; James Robert Canning; William Slade Bungey; Arthur Vincent Roovey Dean; C.D. Kocaroff; Patrick Samuel Gibbons, Alexander Haindrava; Morris Joseph Soulevitch; Evans Daw; Boris S. Frank; and Boris Topas detained in the cells of the Headquarters of the Shanghai Kempei Tai at the Bridge House and of Eric Davies; J.A. Cook; B.P. Young detained in the cells of the Union Jack Club on Myrburgh Road a section of the Western Branch of the Shanghai Kempei-Tai, causing them all physical suffering.”
Committing a War Crime (against D1, D2)
“in that at Shanghai between about the 1st July 1943 and 31st August 1943 the accused KINOSHITA Eiichi then Major General Commanding the Shanghai District Kempei-Tai, and the accused YOSHIDA Bunzo then a Corporal in the Foreign Section of the Special Branch at the Headquarters of the Western Branch of the Shanghai Kempei-Tai on Jessfield Road, were, in violation of the laws and usages of war, concerned in the ill-treatment of civilian residents of Shanghai and in particular of John Martin Watson, William Hutton and Hans Rechlim, causing them physical suffering and resulting in the death of the said William Hutton.”
Second charge (against D1)
Committing a War Crime
“in that he at Shanghai in or about the month of November 1942, was, in violation of the laws and usages of war, concerned in the ill-treatment of a Chinese male, VONG, a civilian resident of Shanghai which ill-treatment resulted in the death of VONG aforesaid.”
Third charge (against D1)
Committing a War Crime
“in that he at Shanghai between the 6th August 1942 and 29th November 1944 as head of the Shanghai Keimpei-Tai and as such responsible for the control of Kempei personnel and the management of the places of detention at Shanghai was in violation of the laws and usages of war concerned in the ill-treatment of civilian residents of Shanghai and in particular the Reverend W.H. Hudspeth, Henry Forsythe Pringle; Edwin Arthur Thompson; Kenneth William Johnstone; James Robert Canning; William Slade Bungey; Arthur Vincent Roovey Dean; C.D. Kocaroff; Patrick Samuel Gibbons, Alexander Haindrava; Morris Joseph Soulevitch; Evans Daw; Boris S. Frank; and Boris Topas detained in the cells of the Headquarters of the Shanghai Kempei Tai at the Bridge House and of Eric Davies; J.A. Cook; B.P. Young detained in the cells of the Union Jack Club on Myrburgh Road a section of the Western Branch of the Shanghai Kempei-Tai, causing them all physical suffering.”
Background
According to the review of the case by the Judge Advocate [A. Sidney-Wilmot, Group Captain, DJAG, FAR EAST, 23 December 1948]:
“After the Japanese entered the War, the International Settlement of Shanghai was occupied by them and in about August 1942 Kinoshita was posted to Shanghai as General Officer Commanding the Kempei Tai with a rank of Major General and among his duties were the training, discipline and control of all Kempei Tai and the control and supervision of all places of detention there. The strength of the Kempei Tai in Shanghai was approximately 1600 in all of whom 1000 were in Kempeis and 500 Auxiliary Kempeis and the Command was divided into 8 Kempei Tai stations. Each of these stations had officers in charge who were of course responsible to General Kinoshita for the proper conduct of their affairs and certain of these Stations had places of detention as part of their establishments in which civilian prisoners were held. These were known as Bridge House, Myrburgh Road Gaol (the former Union Jack Club), Haiphong Road Camp and at 94 Jessfield Road, Shanghai. The Accused General Kinoshita had his office at Bridge House whilst according to his own evidence, Sergeant Yoshida was attached to the German affairs section at 94 Jessfield Road.”
[Note: the case refers to ‘detainees’ as ‘prisoners’.]
D1 was an officer of the Regular Imperial Japanese Army. Until 1937 he was an Infantry Officer but in the early part of that year he was transferred to the Kempei Branch and in August 1937 was promoted to the rank of Colonel. After the Japanese entered the war and when Shanghai was occupied, he was posted to Shanghai as General Officer Commanding the Kempei Tai with the rank of Major-General. His duties were the training, discipline and control of all Kempei Tai and the control and supervision of all places of detention there.
D2 was a Sergeant.
“After the Japanese entered the War, the International Settlement of Shanghai was occupied by them and in about August 1942 Kinoshita was posted to Shanghai as General Officer Commanding the Kempei Tai with a rank of Major General and among his duties were the training, discipline and control of all Kempei Tai and the control and supervision of all places of detention there. The strength of the Kempei Tai in Shanghai was approximately 1600 in all of whom 1000 were in Kempeis and 500 Auxiliary Kempeis and the Command was divided into 8 Kempei Tai stations. Each of these stations had officers in charge who were of course responsible to General Kinoshita for the proper conduct of their affairs and certain of these Stations had places of detention as part of their establishments in which civilian prisoners were held. These were known as Bridge House, Myrburgh Road Gaol (the former Union Jack Club), Haiphong Road Camp and at 94 Jessfield Road, Shanghai. The Accused General Kinoshita had his office at Bridge House whilst according to his own evidence, Sergeant Yoshida was attached to the German affairs section at 94 Jessfield Road.”
[Note: the case refers to ‘detainees’ as ‘prisoners’.]
D1 was an officer of the Regular Imperial Japanese Army. Until 1937 he was an Infantry Officer but in the early part of that year he was transferred to the Kempei Branch and in August 1937 was promoted to the rank of Colonel. After the Japanese entered the war and when Shanghai was occupied, he was posted to Shanghai as General Officer Commanding the Kempei Tai with the rank of Major-General. His duties were the training, discipline and control of all Kempei Tai and the control and supervision of all places of detention there.
D2 was a Sergeant.
Allegations
The Prosecution argued that D1 owed an overall responsibility for the alleged ill-treatment of the various persons mentioned in the charges.
D2 actually took part in the torture of Watson, Hutton and Rechlin who were mentioned in the 1st charge.
The Prosecution called various witnesses to show the inhumane living conditions where prisoners were held. Sanitary conditions were very poor and food was “totally inadequate”. D2 allegedly committed on prisoners “electric treatment” which consisted of sending electric shocks through their bodies by placing electrodes on tender parts of their bodies such as their navels, nipples, lips, noses and ears. Beatings and other tortures were also alleged.
A Chinese detainee, Vong, was allegedly beaten with a wooden stick and a thin iron pipe for 1.5 hours. A notice was also placed outside his cell saying he was to receive no food and no water. Torture and beatings to many other prisoners were alleged.
Several witnesses testified about the mistreatment and sufferings of William Hutton at Haiphong Road Camp and 94 Jessfield Road. After having been tortured for 11 days, he was seen by Allied doctors in detention, and one Dr. S.D. Sturton OBE testified about the condition he was in. According to him, between 2 August 1943 and 13 August 1943, Hutton was reduced from a healthy strong man to a demented wreck and ultimately a few days later died as a result of what he had endured.
The witnesses also spoke of the “horrors” of the camps in which they were detained: appalling conditions, lack of food and water and insanitary conditions.
D2 actually took part in the torture of Watson, Hutton and Rechlin who were mentioned in the 1st charge.
The Prosecution called various witnesses to show the inhumane living conditions where prisoners were held. Sanitary conditions were very poor and food was “totally inadequate”. D2 allegedly committed on prisoners “electric treatment” which consisted of sending electric shocks through their bodies by placing electrodes on tender parts of their bodies such as their navels, nipples, lips, noses and ears. Beatings and other tortures were also alleged.
A Chinese detainee, Vong, was allegedly beaten with a wooden stick and a thin iron pipe for 1.5 hours. A notice was also placed outside his cell saying he was to receive no food and no water. Torture and beatings to many other prisoners were alleged.
Several witnesses testified about the mistreatment and sufferings of William Hutton at Haiphong Road Camp and 94 Jessfield Road. After having been tortured for 11 days, he was seen by Allied doctors in detention, and one Dr. S.D. Sturton OBE testified about the condition he was in. According to him, between 2 August 1943 and 13 August 1943, Hutton was reduced from a healthy strong man to a demented wreck and ultimately a few days later died as a result of what he had endured.
The witnesses also spoke of the “horrors” of the camps in which they were detained: appalling conditions, lack of food and water and insanitary conditions.
Defence
The Defence took the complete denial approach.
D1 denied any knowledge of any ill-treatment of prisoners. He admitted that daily reports were given to his Headquarters by the officers in charge of the stations. But, he said he did not see them at all. He denied having received any reports concerning these prisoners and said that the prisoners would become accustomed to the foul odour from the lavatory buckets in the cells (the Prosecution argued that this indeed showed his “callous attitude towards the prisoners’ welfare”).
D2 also denied all the allegations. He claimed that in the course of his duties, he would not normally come into contact with the prisoners. He denied ever meeting some of the witnesses when they were detained.
D1 denied any knowledge of any ill-treatment of prisoners. He admitted that daily reports were given to his Headquarters by the officers in charge of the stations. But, he said he did not see them at all. He denied having received any reports concerning these prisoners and said that the prisoners would become accustomed to the foul odour from the lavatory buckets in the cells (the Prosecution argued that this indeed showed his “callous attitude towards the prisoners’ welfare”).
D2 also denied all the allegations. He claimed that in the course of his duties, he would not normally come into contact with the prisoners. He denied ever meeting some of the witnesses when they were detained.
Prosecutor
Maj. P Clague, Royal Artillery, Office of the Deputy Director of Legal Services, CHQ FARELF
Defence Counsel
Mr Kakehi Masao, LLB, Barrrister-at-Law, Tokyo
Judges
President: Lt.-Col L.A. Massie, Royal Scots Fusiliers, Solicitor
Members: Major B.H. Craig, The Buffs; Captn. H.M. McLeod-Martin, Middlesex Regiment
Members: Major B.H. Craig, The Buffs; Captn. H.M. McLeod-Martin, Middlesex Regiment
Advisory Officer
Capt. W.R.L. Herries, Royal Sussex Regiment
Prosecution Witnesses
Henry Forsythe Pringle (Superintendent)
James Robert Canning (Factory Manager)
John Martin Watson (Civilian)
John Macauley (Employee of Shanghai Electrical Construction Company)
Ronald Charles Henry Hillman (Factory Supervisor)
Reginald Eynstone (Civil servant)
James Edward Bienkinsop (Former Chief Inspector)
Eric Davies (Consulting Engineer)
Herbert John Collar (Employee of Imperial Chemicals)
B.P. Young (Employed by Chinese Government)
Alexaner Haindrava (Shipping Agent)
David Lionel Tong (Real Estate Agent)
Stephen Douglas Sturton (Doctor)
Albert Edward Kyte (Officer commanding British Minor War Crimes, Liaison Section)
James Matsuda (Unknown)
Defence Witnesses
Kinoshita Kiichi (Accused) (Lieutenant-General)
Federick Marcus Hall (Captain)
Yoshida Bunzo (Accused) (Sergeant)
Atsumi Tonojiro (Kempei Warrant Officer)
Honda Isemu (Kempei Sergeant-Major)
Yoshimi Taneyoshi (Medical Captain)
Sigiura Tadamoto (Major)
Court Witnesses
T Ellis, RN (Commander)
Takahashi Mikio (Defence Counsel)
Kiichi Makita (Court Interpreter)
Hiyama Seinoshin (Seaman)
Trial Dates
25-Oct-1948
27-Oct-1948
28-Oct-1948
29-Oct-1948
30-Oct-1948
01-Nov-1948
02-Nov-1948
04-Nov-1948
05-Nov-1948
08-Nov-1948
09-Nov-1948
10-Nov-1948
11-Nov-1948
22-Nov-1948
24-Nov-1948
Judgement Date
24-Nov-1948
Judgement Confirmation Date
02-Dec-1948
Judgement Promulgation Date
17-Jan-1949
Judgement
With special findings
D1:
1st charge: Guilty;
2nd charge: Guilty;
3rd charge: Guilty with the exception of the words “Arthur Vincent Rooney Lean.”
D2:
1st charge: Guilty with the exception of the words “John Martin Watson”.
D1:
1st charge: Guilty;
2nd charge: Guilty;
3rd charge: Guilty with the exception of the words “Arthur Vincent Rooney Lean.”
D2:
1st charge: Guilty with the exception of the words “John Martin Watson”.
Petition
Both the Accused petitioned against the finding and sentence. D1 petitioned that there was no evidence at trial that he was “concerned in” the alleged ill-treatment of the prisoners and suggested that the Court misinterpreted the words “concerned in” for “responsible for”. The Judge Advocate [A. Sidney-Wilmot, Group Captain, DJAG, FAR EAST, 23 December 1948] did not consider there to be any substance in this. D2’s petition was described by the Judge Advocate as a mere “repetition of his denial of knowledge of the offences alleged against him”, all of this was before the court.
The Judge Advocate advised as follows on the case. He found the trial to have been “well conducted”. “Broadly speaking the case for the prosecution was that Lieutenant General Kinoshita owed an overall responsibility for the alleged ill-treatment of the various persons mentioned in the charges whilst Sergeant Yoshida actually took part in the torture of Watson, Hutton and Rechlin who are mentioned in the first Charge.”
The Judge Advocate advised that the court was entirely justified in convicting Kinoshita (D1) in relation to the second charge, concerning the victim Vong. Kinoshita was the senior officer on the scene and “yet he did nothing whatever to alleviate Vong’s suffering”.
The Judge Advocate also advised, in relation to Accused Kinoshita (D1), “In my opinion he may be said to be responsible for and concerned in the numerous acts of cruelty practiced by his subordinates.” He knew of the treatment meted out to prisoners. “It was certainly his duty to know and he himself admitted that even without that knowledge he owed a moral responsibility (Page 213). I consider that the Court was justified in convicting Kinoshita of all the Charges.”
In relation to D2, the Judge Advocate assessed that “Having regard to the evidence of the Prosecution witnesses and in particular, Mr. Watson, Mr. Soloman and Mr. Hans Rechlin, I am of the opinion that the Court was justified in convicting Sergeant Yoshida Bunzo of the first Charge which was the only one upon which he was arraigned.”
In respect of the sentencing, “The maximum punishment to which the Court could have sentenced the accused was death and you will no doubt consider in all the circumstances as to whether the sentences of Life Imprisonment for General Kinoshita and 12 years Imprisonment for Sergeant Yoshida are just. I respectfully suggest that they are. The Court made no recommendation to mercy.”
The Judge Advocate advised that the petitions should be dismissed, and the findings and sentences confirmed.
In this case, five petitions for clemency were submitted from relatives and friends of the Accused Kinoshita (D1) after confirmation. On 16 March 1949, the Judge Advocate General considered the matter and repeated earlier advice that “once the Proceedings of a War Crimes trial are confirmed, Petitions submitted on behalf of or even by convicted persons themselves are out of time, are submitted without any authorization and are contrary to Regulation 10 of the Regulations for the Trial of War Criminals made pursuant to the Royal Warrant of 14 June 1945 (Army Order 51/1945); and that it is not incumbent on the confirming authority to take any action whatever on such Petitions.”
The Judge Advocate advised as follows on the case. He found the trial to have been “well conducted”. “Broadly speaking the case for the prosecution was that Lieutenant General Kinoshita owed an overall responsibility for the alleged ill-treatment of the various persons mentioned in the charges whilst Sergeant Yoshida actually took part in the torture of Watson, Hutton and Rechlin who are mentioned in the first Charge.”
The Judge Advocate advised that the court was entirely justified in convicting Kinoshita (D1) in relation to the second charge, concerning the victim Vong. Kinoshita was the senior officer on the scene and “yet he did nothing whatever to alleviate Vong’s suffering”.
The Judge Advocate also advised, in relation to Accused Kinoshita (D1), “In my opinion he may be said to be responsible for and concerned in the numerous acts of cruelty practiced by his subordinates.” He knew of the treatment meted out to prisoners. “It was certainly his duty to know and he himself admitted that even without that knowledge he owed a moral responsibility (Page 213). I consider that the Court was justified in convicting Kinoshita of all the Charges.”
In relation to D2, the Judge Advocate assessed that “Having regard to the evidence of the Prosecution witnesses and in particular, Mr. Watson, Mr. Soloman and Mr. Hans Rechlin, I am of the opinion that the Court was justified in convicting Sergeant Yoshida Bunzo of the first Charge which was the only one upon which he was arraigned.”
In respect of the sentencing, “The maximum punishment to which the Court could have sentenced the accused was death and you will no doubt consider in all the circumstances as to whether the sentences of Life Imprisonment for General Kinoshita and 12 years Imprisonment for Sergeant Yoshida are just. I respectfully suggest that they are. The Court made no recommendation to mercy.”
The Judge Advocate advised that the petitions should be dismissed, and the findings and sentences confirmed.
In this case, five petitions for clemency were submitted from relatives and friends of the Accused Kinoshita (D1) after confirmation. On 16 March 1949, the Judge Advocate General considered the matter and repeated earlier advice that “once the Proceedings of a War Crimes trial are confirmed, Petitions submitted on behalf of or even by convicted persons themselves are out of time, are submitted without any authorization and are contrary to Regulation 10 of the Regulations for the Trial of War Criminals made pursuant to the Royal Warrant of 14 June 1945 (Army Order 51/1945); and that it is not incumbent on the confirming authority to take any action whatever on such Petitions.”
Sentence Imposed
D1: Life Imprisonment;
D2: 12 years imprisonment.
D2: 12 years imprisonment.
Keywords
Shanghai; Civilians; Kempeitai; Gendarme/Gendarmes/Gendarmerie; Unlawful arrest or detention; Place of detention; “concerned in”; Poor conditions of detention; Failure to provide adequate medical care; Beatings; Interrogation; Torture; Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment; Unlawful killing; War Crimes; Doctor; Violations of the laws and customs of war
Remarks
The Judge Advocate’s review of the proceedings is unusually detailed, providing a good overview of the evidence brought about the conditions endured by prisoners of the Kempeitai in Shanghai.
Refer to the case of Sgt. Major Yokohata Toshiro, Case No. WO/235/1117.
This case was tried at Lyemun Barracks, Hong Kong. This was one of two courts established, after completion of the work of the original two war crimes courts, to deal with cases from Shanghai.
Refer to the case of Sgt. Major Yokohata Toshiro, Case No. WO/235/1117.
This case was tried at Lyemun Barracks, Hong Kong. This was one of two courts established, after completion of the work of the original two war crimes courts, to deal with cases from Shanghai.