WO235/895
Dublin Core
Title
WO235/895
Description
Committing a War Crime
“in that they at Hong Kong between 20th July 1945 and 18th August 1945 being in the service of the occupying power of Japanese Gendarmerie, Headquarters, in violation of the laws and usages of war, were together concerned in the maltreatment of the following civilians, under arrest and at the said Headquarters: IP TING CHANG, IP HA KAN, IP HAK KIM, LAU HAI HIT, SO SUI WING, CHAN CHE WING and CHAN KANG CHEN”
“in that they at Hong Kong between 20th July 1945 and 18th August 1945 being in the service of the occupying power of Japanese Gendarmerie, Headquarters, in violation of the laws and usages of war, were together concerned in the maltreatment of the following civilians, under arrest and at the said Headquarters: IP TING CHANG, IP HA KAN, IP HAK KIM, LAU HAI HIT, SO SUI WING, CHAN CHE WING and CHAN KANG CHEN”
Legal Case Item Type Metadata
Case No.
WO235/895
Accused
Sgt. Hanada Zenji (D1)
L./Cpl. Sano Toshiharu (D2)
W/O Kurosawa Hideo (D3)
Sgt Sakamoto Isoji (D4)
Court
Military Court for the Trial of War Criminals No. 7
Charge
Committing a War Crime
“in that they at Hong Kong between 20th July 1945 and 18th August 1945 being in the service of the occupying power of Japanese Gendarmerie, Headquarters, in violation of the laws and usages of war, were together concerned in the maltreatment of the following civilians, under arrest and at the said Headquarters: IP TING CHANG, IP HA KAN, IP HAK KIM, LAU HAI HIT, SO SUI WING, CHAN CHE WING and CHAN KANG CHEN”
“in that they at Hong Kong between 20th July 1945 and 18th August 1945 being in the service of the occupying power of Japanese Gendarmerie, Headquarters, in violation of the laws and usages of war, were together concerned in the maltreatment of the following civilians, under arrest and at the said Headquarters: IP TING CHANG, IP HA KAN, IP HAK KIM, LAU HAI HIT, SO SUI WING, CHAN CHE WING and CHAN KANG CHEN”
Background
The first Accused (D1) was a Gendarme Lance-Corporal attached to the Hong Kong Island District Gendarmerie since 20 February 1945.
The second Accused (D2) was a Gendarme Sergeant attached to the Hong Kong Island district Gendarme since March 1945.
The third Accused (D3) was a Warrant Officer in the Hong Kong Island District Gendarmie who was also in charge of a special intelligence team to collect information.
The fourth Accused (D4) was a Gendarme Sergeant working in the special intelligence team who was an administrator, dealing with paperwork.
The victims were suspected of espionage, were arrested, brought to and detained in the Supreme Court building under the Special Intelligence Department.
The second Accused (D2) was a Gendarme Sergeant attached to the Hong Kong Island district Gendarme since March 1945.
The third Accused (D3) was a Warrant Officer in the Hong Kong Island District Gendarmie who was also in charge of a special intelligence team to collect information.
The fourth Accused (D4) was a Gendarme Sergeant working in the special intelligence team who was an administrator, dealing with paperwork.
The victims were suspected of espionage, were arrested, brought to and detained in the Supreme Court building under the Special Intelligence Department.
Allegations
The Prosecution sought to establish that the Accused maltreated the named civilian victims.
The case for the Prosecution consisted solely of the evidence of the seven Chinese civilians mentioned in the charge. They were arrested on suspicion of espionage and were detained in the Supreme Court Building, and were interrogated by the Accused.
With respect to D1, it was alleged that he committed, inter alia, the “aero plane torture” “water torture"; beating victims with whips, canes and poles until they became unconscious. It was also alleged that he was present when certain victims’ arms and faces were burnt.
With respect to D2, it was alleged that he witnessed the beating of victims and also ordered and instigated the infliction of “airplane torture” and “water torture” on certain victims.
With respect to D3, it was alleged that he witnessed the beating of victims and also ordered and instigated the infliction of “airplane torture” on certain victims. He was also alleged to have burnt certain victims with lighted matches and cigarettes.
D4 was alleged to have beaten one of the victims named.
The case for the Prosecution consisted solely of the evidence of the seven Chinese civilians mentioned in the charge. They were arrested on suspicion of espionage and were detained in the Supreme Court Building, and were interrogated by the Accused.
With respect to D1, it was alleged that he committed, inter alia, the “aero plane torture” “water torture"; beating victims with whips, canes and poles until they became unconscious. It was also alleged that he was present when certain victims’ arms and faces were burnt.
With respect to D2, it was alleged that he witnessed the beating of victims and also ordered and instigated the infliction of “airplane torture” and “water torture” on certain victims.
With respect to D3, it was alleged that he witnessed the beating of victims and also ordered and instigated the infliction of “airplane torture” on certain victims. He was also alleged to have burnt certain victims with lighted matches and cigarettes.
D4 was alleged to have beaten one of the victims named.
Defence
At the start, the Defence launched an unsuccessful challenge on the vagueness of the charge.
The Defence claimed that the whole trial was a “frame-up”.
The Defence denied all allegations of torture and maltreatment on the grounds of insufficient evidence.
Other than D4 who admitted that he slapped the named victim, all other Accused denied any sort of ill-treatment or torture.
The Defence claimed that the whole trial was a “frame-up”.
The Defence denied all allegations of torture and maltreatment on the grounds of insufficient evidence.
Other than D4 who admitted that he slapped the named victim, all other Accused denied any sort of ill-treatment or torture.
Prosecutor
Major G. B. Puddicombe (Advocate) (The Victoria Rifles of Canada)
Defence Counsel
Capt. J.F. Reilly, Staff Captain (Legal), HQ, ALFSEA
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
Ip Tin-shang (Chief interpreter, Kowloon Magistracy)
K.C. Chan (Manager, Century Company)
Chan Che-wing (Manager of a jewellery shop)
So Shui-wing (Industrial Chemist)
Ip Hak-kan (Health Inspector)
Ip Hak-kin (Shop assistant)
Lau Hai-lit (Manager, Kwong Cheung firm.)
Defence Witnesses
Sakamoto Isoji (Gendarme Sergeant, Hong Kong Island District Gendarmerie)
W/O Kurasawa Hideo (Gendarmerie Warrant Officer, Hong Kong Island District Gendarmerie)
Hanada Zenji (Gendarme Sergeant, Hong Kong Island District Gendarmerie)
L/Cpl Sano Toshiharu (Gendarme Lance-corporal, Hong Kong Island District Gendarmerie)
Captain Ogura Kuraichi (Gendarme Captain, Hong Kong Island District Gendarmerie)
S/M Miyashita Mitsumori (Gendarme Sergeant-Major, Hong Kong Island District Gendarmerie)
W/O Nozaka Katsuzo (Gendarmerie Warrant Officer, Hong Kong Island District Gendarmerie)
Cpl. T. Anderson, 42 Cdo. (Corporal, Escort for Japanese and Chinese Prisoners.)
Trial Dates
1946-05-30
1946-05-31
1946-06-01
1946-06-03
1946-06-04
1946-06-05
1946-06-06
1946-06-07
1946-06-11
Judgement Date
1946-06-11
Judgement Confirmation Date
1946-07-03
Judgement Promulgation Date
1946-07-09
Judgement
Held:
1. That D1, D2 and D3 were guilty;
2. That D4 was not guilty.
1. That D1, D2 and D3 were guilty;
2. That D4 was not guilty.
Petition
No Petition is on record.
The Judge Advocate [Lt. Col. L. Raynor, AJAG, HQ Land Forces, 1 July 1946] described the trial as “long and well conducted”. He recommended confirmation of the findings and the sentence.
“The case against Kurosawa was not a particularly strong one, and the Court either believed his evidence or gave him the benefit of the doubt regarding his guilt. The court’s findings of not guilty in respect of Sakamoto does not require confirmation”.
“There was ample evidence in my opinion to warrant the Court’s findings of guilty in respect of the other three accused. It is clear that the Court believed the Prosecution Witnesses and disbelieved the evidence given by Sano, Kurosawa and Hanada. The facts as proved in the evidence clearly amounted in law to a War Crime. In my view, the accused were rightly convicted. Having regard to the evidence and all the circumstances of the case you may not think the sentences unduly severe.”
The Judge Advocate noted certain inappropriate remarks made by the defence counsel as immoderate and “verged on contempt of the Court”, in particular his last few sentences in his closing address. He also, however, pointed out that the said counsel had acted with utmost vigour in defending his clients, and this was not meant to be insulting. He observed that “I feel sure he was carried away in his efforts to assist the accused.”
The Judge Advocate [Lt. Col. L. Raynor, AJAG, HQ Land Forces, 1 July 1946] described the trial as “long and well conducted”. He recommended confirmation of the findings and the sentence.
“The case against Kurosawa was not a particularly strong one, and the Court either believed his evidence or gave him the benefit of the doubt regarding his guilt. The court’s findings of not guilty in respect of Sakamoto does not require confirmation”.
“There was ample evidence in my opinion to warrant the Court’s findings of guilty in respect of the other three accused. It is clear that the Court believed the Prosecution Witnesses and disbelieved the evidence given by Sano, Kurosawa and Hanada. The facts as proved in the evidence clearly amounted in law to a War Crime. In my view, the accused were rightly convicted. Having regard to the evidence and all the circumstances of the case you may not think the sentences unduly severe.”
The Judge Advocate noted certain inappropriate remarks made by the defence counsel as immoderate and “verged on contempt of the Court”, in particular his last few sentences in his closing address. He also, however, pointed out that the said counsel had acted with utmost vigour in defending his clients, and this was not meant to be insulting. He observed that “I feel sure he was carried away in his efforts to assist the accused.”
Sentence Imposed
D1: 8 years imprisonment;
D2: 6 years imprisonment;
D3: 3 years imprisonment.
D2: 6 years imprisonment;
D3: 3 years imprisonment.
Keywords
Hong Kong; Kempeitai; Gendarme/Gendarmes/Gendarmerie; Civilians; Espionage; Place of Detention; "together concerned in"; Committed; Ordered; Instigated; Witnessed; Torture; Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment; Interrogation
War Crimes; Violations of laws and customs of war
War Crimes; Violations of laws and customs of war
Remarks
I Defence Counsel represented 4 Co-Accused.
Files
Collection
Citation
“WO235/895,” Hong Kong's War Crimes Trials Collection, accessed April 26, 2024, https://hkwctc.lib.hku.hk/items/show/50.
Geolocation
Hello World, hello