In this case, the Accused was initially tried and convicted of war crimes. Evidence emerged that he had, as he had alleged, been born in Canada. The judgement was not confirmed, and the matter was sent to the Supreme Court in Hong Kong for trial for the crime of treason. We have obtained copies of the original War Crimes trial. We have not obtained copies of the Supreme Court file (which is at the Hong Kong Public Records Office), but we have made a case note of this.
To access the complete case file, click here
Complete War Crimes Court case file Casenote of the Supreme Court trialCase No.
WO235/927
Accused
Inouye Kanao
Court
Military Court for the Trial of War Criminals No. 7
Charge
First Charge: Committing a War Crime
“in that he at Hong Kong, on or about the twenty first day of December 1942, when an interpreter on the Prisoner of War Camp Staff at Sham Shuipo Camp, in violation of the laws and usages of war, did assault Capt J.A. NORRIS of the Winnipeg Grenadiers, Canadian Army, by beating him in full view of the Canadian prisoners of war whilst they were drawn up on parade”.
Second Charge: Committing a War Crime
“in that he at Hong Kong, on or about the twenty first day of December 1942, when an interpreter on the Prisoner of War Camp Staff at Sham Shuipo Camp, in violation of the laws and usages of war, did assault Major F.T. ATKINSON, Royal Rifles of Canada, Canadian Army by kicking him in full view of the Canadian prisoners of war whilst they were drawn up on parade”.
Third Charge: Committing a War Crime
“in that he, at Hong Kong between the 15th day of June and the 30th day of November 1944 when a member of the staff of the Japanese Gendarmerie Headquarters, in violation of the laws and usages of war, was concerned in the ill-treatment of civilian residents of Hong Kong under arrest at 67-69 Kimberley Road, Stanley Gaol and other places, resulting in the death of Mr. Power, Ip Kam Wing, So Shing Hon and Enrique Lee, and physical sufferings to others of the said persons and in particular to Mrs M.V. Power, Mr R.P. Chilote, Dr. V.N. Atienza, Mr. A.E.P. Guest, Mr. G. Sang, Mr Mohd Yousif Khan , Lam Sik and Wong Sui Poy”.
“in that he at Hong Kong, on or about the twenty first day of December 1942, when an interpreter on the Prisoner of War Camp Staff at Sham Shuipo Camp, in violation of the laws and usages of war, did assault Capt J.A. NORRIS of the Winnipeg Grenadiers, Canadian Army, by beating him in full view of the Canadian prisoners of war whilst they were drawn up on parade”.
Second Charge: Committing a War Crime
“in that he at Hong Kong, on or about the twenty first day of December 1942, when an interpreter on the Prisoner of War Camp Staff at Sham Shuipo Camp, in violation of the laws and usages of war, did assault Major F.T. ATKINSON, Royal Rifles of Canada, Canadian Army by kicking him in full view of the Canadian prisoners of war whilst they were drawn up on parade”.
Third Charge: Committing a War Crime
“in that he, at Hong Kong between the 15th day of June and the 30th day of November 1944 when a member of the staff of the Japanese Gendarmerie Headquarters, in violation of the laws and usages of war, was concerned in the ill-treatment of civilian residents of Hong Kong under arrest at 67-69 Kimberley Road, Stanley Gaol and other places, resulting in the death of Mr. Power, Ip Kam Wing, So Shing Hon and Enrique Lee, and physical sufferings to others of the said persons and in particular to Mrs M.V. Power, Mr R.P. Chilote, Dr. V.N. Atienza, Mr. A.E.P. Guest, Mr. G. Sang, Mr Mohd Yousif Khan , Lam Sik and Wong Sui Poy”.
Background
The Accused (called “Kamloops Kids” or “Yankee”) was a Canada-born Japanese. He returned to Japan to study. He was later conscripted as an interpreter in May 1942 and was sent to Hong Kong. He became a civilian Interpreter in the Prisoner of War (‘POW’) Camp Headquarters.
The charges concerned the Accused’s alleged participation in torture and maltreatment of persons in detention, during his service as Interpreter for the Japanese Gendarmerie (Kempeitai) and for the Army at the POW Camp at Sham Shuipo.
The charges concerned the Accused’s alleged participation in torture and maltreatment of persons in detention, during his service as Interpreter for the Japanese Gendarmerie (Kempeitai) and for the Army at the POW Camp at Sham Shuipo.
Allegations
The Prosecution argued that from the moment the Accused arrived in Hong Kong, he was employed only as an Interpreter and only by the Gendarmerie.
On the First and Second Charge
The Prosecution alleged that the Accused assaulted two Canadian officers on 21st December 1942 (Capt. JA Norris and Major JT Atkinson) in full view of other Canadian POWs.
The Prosecution case was that Norris was subjected to beating, humiliation and insult, while Atkinson was subjected to kicking.
On the point of Superior Orders, the Prosecution cited the Yamashita line of authorities and argued that the Accused was acting “off his own bat” altogether.
On the Third Charge
The Prosecution alleged that the Accused ill-treated certain civilian residents of Hong Kong, some of whose deaths were attributable to such ill-treatment. The Prosecution argued that “if the accused has anything whatsoever to do with any of this ill-treatment he was concerned in them”, even though the Prosecution sought to argue that he actually took part in them.
On the question of actual ill-treatment, it was alleged that the Accused actually took part in torture, based on the testimony given by several witnesses. This testimony tended to show that those, who had been subject to ill-treatment with the Accused on the scene, or being the torturer himself, were either severely injured or died soon after. The torture methods included beating, whipping, burning, “water torture”, and the “aeroplane torture”.
In the course of its closing submission, the Prosecution acknowledged some difficulties in attributing the death of certain civilians as being a logical consequence of the ill-treatment inflicted by the Accused.
On the First and Second Charge
The Prosecution alleged that the Accused assaulted two Canadian officers on 21st December 1942 (Capt. JA Norris and Major JT Atkinson) in full view of other Canadian POWs.
The Prosecution case was that Norris was subjected to beating, humiliation and insult, while Atkinson was subjected to kicking.
On the point of Superior Orders, the Prosecution cited the Yamashita line of authorities and argued that the Accused was acting “off his own bat” altogether.
On the Third Charge
The Prosecution alleged that the Accused ill-treated certain civilian residents of Hong Kong, some of whose deaths were attributable to such ill-treatment. The Prosecution argued that “if the accused has anything whatsoever to do with any of this ill-treatment he was concerned in them”, even though the Prosecution sought to argue that he actually took part in them.
On the question of actual ill-treatment, it was alleged that the Accused actually took part in torture, based on the testimony given by several witnesses. This testimony tended to show that those, who had been subject to ill-treatment with the Accused on the scene, or being the torturer himself, were either severely injured or died soon after. The torture methods included beating, whipping, burning, “water torture”, and the “aeroplane torture”.
In the course of its closing submission, the Prosecution acknowledged some difficulties in attributing the death of certain civilians as being a logical consequence of the ill-treatment inflicted by the Accused.
Defence
The Defence challenged the jurisdiction of the War Crimes Court, arguing it was never intended that British subjects should be tried by War Crimes courts. He was born in British Columbia, and should rightly be tried by a Canadian court.
The Defence started by quoting Wheaton’s International Law (1944) that “justice inclines to the view that war crimes are not attributable to individuals”. The Defence focused on two lines of argument, one being Superior Orders for the first and the second charge, and another being insufficiency of evidence, for the the third charge.
On the first and the second charge
The Defence emphasized that the Accused had to obey the orders given to him by his superior, one Lt. Sakaino. The alleged acts were, in any event, approved by the superior who was present at the scene. The Accused argued that he could not be held primarily responsible as he only followed orders. He also asked the Court to remember the true nature of the Japanese system – how difficult it was for people who were caught in the system to revolt against it.
On the third charge
The Accused was a civilian. Although some of the victims died after being held by the Gendarmerie, the proper person who had them in custody should bear responsibly. The Accused was not responsible. On the allegations of specific victims and witnesses who testified during the trial, the Defence principally challenged the sufficiency of evidence, specifically the absence of evidence of ill-treatment in some instances. The Defence also observed that when there was some ill-treatment, the Accused was not particularly or specifically identified.
The Defence closed by saying that the Accused acted on orders all the time. It noted that some witnesses actually acknowledged the kindness and help of the Accused.
The Defence started by quoting Wheaton’s International Law (1944) that “justice inclines to the view that war crimes are not attributable to individuals”. The Defence focused on two lines of argument, one being Superior Orders for the first and the second charge, and another being insufficiency of evidence, for the the third charge.
On the first and the second charge
The Defence emphasized that the Accused had to obey the orders given to him by his superior, one Lt. Sakaino. The alleged acts were, in any event, approved by the superior who was present at the scene. The Accused argued that he could not be held primarily responsible as he only followed orders. He also asked the Court to remember the true nature of the Japanese system – how difficult it was for people who were caught in the system to revolt against it.
On the third charge
The Accused was a civilian. Although some of the victims died after being held by the Gendarmerie, the proper person who had them in custody should bear responsibly. The Accused was not responsible. On the allegations of specific victims and witnesses who testified during the trial, the Defence principally challenged the sufficiency of evidence, specifically the absence of evidence of ill-treatment in some instances. The Defence also observed that when there was some ill-treatment, the Accused was not particularly or specifically identified.
The Defence closed by saying that the Accused acted on orders all the time. It noted that some witnesses actually acknowledged the kindness and help of the Accused.
Prosecutor
Major G.B. Puddicombe (Victoria Rifles, Canada)
Defence Counsel
Lieut. J.R. Haggan, R.E.
Judges
President: Lt. Col. J.C. Stewart (Dept. of JAG, India, Solicitor)
Members: Major M.I. Ormsby (West Yorks Regiment); Capt B.N. Kaul (The Frontier Force Regt.)
Members: Major M.I. Ormsby (West Yorks Regiment); Capt B.N. Kaul (The Frontier Force Regt.)
Prosecution Witnesses
Lt. Col. – R.C. Cooper (War Crimes Investigation Team, Land Forces, Hong Kong)
Capt. Chan Ying-hung (War Crimes Investigation Team, Land Forces, Hong Kong)
Lam Sik (Employee, Cable and Wireless, Ltd.)
Capt. F.V. Collison (War Crimes Investigation Team, Land Forces, Hong Kong)
Mrs. Mary Violet Power (Spouse of a victim.)
Rampal Chilote (Civil Servant)
A. Madar (Manager, Lebel Trading Company, Hong Kong)
Wilfred Lawrence (Wireless Operator, Hong Kong Government Radio)
Dr V.N. Atienza (Medical Practitioner)
Lai Chak Po (Clerk and Interpreter, Kowloon Magistrates Court)
Gonzalo Sang (Unemployed)
A.E.P. Guest (Government Wireless Supervisor)
Leung Hing-lin (Unemployed)
Ip Iu-ting (Clerk, Asiatic Petroleum Co. Ltd.)
Rahmed Khan (Chief Indian Warder, Stanley Prison)
J.W. Anderson (Medical Practitioner)
Defence Witnesses
Inouye Kanao (Accused. Gendarmerie Interpreter)
Trial Dates
22-May-1946
23-May-1946
24-May-1946
25-May-1946
27-May-1946
Judgement Date
27-May-1946
Judgement
Held:
1. The Accused was guilty on the first and the second charge;
2. The Accused was guilty on the third charge, subject to a special finding as follows: “COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, in that he, at Hong Kong between June 15 and November 13, 1944, when a member of the staff of the Japanese Gendarmerie Headquarters, in violation of the laws and usages of war, was concerned in the ill-treatment of civilian residents of Hong Kong under arrest at 67-69 Kimberley Road, Stanley Gaol and other places, resulting in the physical sufferings of Enrique Lee, Mrs M.V. Power, Mr R.P. Chilote, Dr. V.N. Atienza, Mr. A.E.P. Guest, Mr. G. Sang, Mr Mohd Yousif Khan and Lam Sik.”
[N.B. this was not confirmed]
1. The Accused was guilty on the first and the second charge;
2. The Accused was guilty on the third charge, subject to a special finding as follows: “COMMITTING A WAR CRIME, in that he, at Hong Kong between June 15 and November 13, 1944, when a member of the staff of the Japanese Gendarmerie Headquarters, in violation of the laws and usages of war, was concerned in the ill-treatment of civilian residents of Hong Kong under arrest at 67-69 Kimberley Road, Stanley Gaol and other places, resulting in the physical sufferings of Enrique Lee, Mrs M.V. Power, Mr R.P. Chilote, Dr. V.N. Atienza, Mr. A.E.P. Guest, Mr. G. Sang, Mr Mohd Yousif Khan and Lam Sik.”
[N.B. this was not confirmed]
Petition
The Accused petitioned:
1. He had been prejudiced in his defence by the non-availability of certain witnesses;
2. The verdict was against the weight of evidence;
3. The sentence was unduly severe in the light of the evidence;
4. Inadequate consideration was given to his role as an Interpreter;
5. The Military Court which tried him had no jurisdiction and was therefore incompetent since he was a Canadian subject.
In light of confirmation from the Colonial Office that the Accused was born in Canada, the Judge Advocate advised that the petition be allowed on 14 November 1946. The proceedings were not confirmed. Innouye Kanau’s conviction was overturned and he was then tried in the Supreme Court of Hong Kong where he was convicted of High Treason.
1. He had been prejudiced in his defence by the non-availability of certain witnesses;
2. The verdict was against the weight of evidence;
3. The sentence was unduly severe in the light of the evidence;
4. Inadequate consideration was given to his role as an Interpreter;
5. The Military Court which tried him had no jurisdiction and was therefore incompetent since he was a Canadian subject.
In light of confirmation from the Colonial Office that the Accused was born in Canada, the Judge Advocate advised that the petition be allowed on 14 November 1946. The proceedings were not confirmed. Innouye Kanau’s conviction was overturned and he was then tried in the Supreme Court of Hong Kong where he was convicted of High Treason.
Sentence Imposed
Death by hanging.
Note: He was eventually hanged, but not under this proceeding.
Note: He was eventually hanged, but not under this proceeding.
Keywords
Hong Kong; Interpreter; Kempeitai; Gendarme/Gendarmes/Gendarmerie; Imperial Japanese Army; Civilians; Place of Detention; Prisoner of War; Prisoner of War Camp; "concerned in"; Committed; Torture; Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment; Killing; Direct perpetration; Beating; Unlawful Killing; War Crimes; Violations of laws and customs of war; Command Responsibility; Yamashita; Wheaton; Superior Orders; Mitigating circumstances; Jurisdiction Challenge; Judgement not confirmed
Remarks
See Case No. HKRS 163-1-216 (from Hong Kong Public Records Office)