WO235/993
Dublin Core
Title
WO235/993
Description
“Committing a war crime in that they at LANTAU ISLAND between 18 Aug. 45 and 26 Aug. 45 in violation of the laws and usages of war were together concerned in the beating, torture and maltreatment of inhabitants of the SILVER MINE BAY district of LANTAU aforesaid and in the killing of nine of the said inhabitants.”
Legal Case Item Type Metadata
Case No.
WO235/993
Accused
Lt. Kishi Yasuo (D1)
Lt. Matsumoto Chozaburo (D2)
W.O. Yanagizawa Sadao (D3)
S.M. Kodama Mitsutoshi (D4)
S.M. Uchida Hiroshi (D5)
Sjt. Jomori Riichi (D6)
Sjt. Sato Yoshio (D7)
Sjt. Yoshikawa Gunichi (D8)
Cpl. Kamishiro Katsumasa (D9)
L/Cpl. Takenaka Sekimatsu (D10)
L/Cpl. Ando Takashi (D11)
1/Pte. Takahashi Harukiko (D12)
Pte. Nishizawa Kenro (D13)
Pte. Uemura Gisaku (D14)
Pte. Okamoto Kichitaro (D15)
Court
Military Court for the Trial of War Criminals No. [not specified]
Charge
“Committing a war crime in that they at LANTAU ISLAND between 18 Aug. 45 and 26 Aug. 45 in violation of the laws and usages of war were together concerned in the beating, torture and maltreatment of inhabitants of the SILVER MINE BAY district of LANTAU aforesaid and in the killing of nine of the said inhabitants.”
Background
All the Accused were members of the Imperial Japanese Army. In August 1945, they were responsible for the Silver Mine Bay district of the Island of Lantau. D1 was the Company Commander. D2 was in charge of the unit in Silver Mine Bay under D1.
The events took place between 19-27 August 1945, after the company was attacked by Chinese guerillas. This was after the Japanese Emperor’s capitulation on 15 August 1945. The Japanese repulsed the attack. They proceeded to three villages in the neighbourhood. They allegedly burned and looted the villages, and killed some of the villagers, including women, and arrested 300 others.
The events took place between 19-27 August 1945, after the company was attacked by Chinese guerillas. This was after the Japanese Emperor’s capitulation on 15 August 1945. The Japanese repulsed the attack. They proceeded to three villages in the neighbourhood. They allegedly burned and looted the villages, and killed some of the villagers, including women, and arrested 300 others.
Allegations
The Prosecution alleged that D1 was absent from his company at the time and the orders were given by D2. The arrested persons were taken to a swimming shed on a beach and were tied to stakes and beaten.
When D1 returned, he resumed control and interrogated two Chinese elders, Tsang Sau and Lam Fook, and eventually beheaded them. The same evening, several villagers were beaten and tortured by D1 and his subordinates.
The next day, all the villagers were released except 20 men who continued to be detained. The detained men were tied up to poles, beaten and maltreated again. The Japanese made no attempt to supply food and they were dependent on relatives to bring food to them. Two more Chinese, So Po Wa and Leung Tung Cheong, were executed by D5 on the orders of D2.
On 22 August 1945, the Japanese raided another village and shot a Chinese called Lam Tsah. Lam Kuan was also arrested and later executed by D1.
When D1 returned, he resumed control and interrogated two Chinese elders, Tsang Sau and Lam Fook, and eventually beheaded them. The same evening, several villagers were beaten and tortured by D1 and his subordinates.
The next day, all the villagers were released except 20 men who continued to be detained. The detained men were tied up to poles, beaten and maltreated again. The Japanese made no attempt to supply food and they were dependent on relatives to bring food to them. Two more Chinese, So Po Wa and Leung Tung Cheong, were executed by D5 on the orders of D2.
On 22 August 1945, the Japanese raided another village and shot a Chinese called Lam Tsah. Lam Kuan was also arrested and later executed by D1.
Defence
D1 admitted he arrested and executed three Chinese. But, he said that the guerillas had attacked the garrison and that all measures taken by him were in Self Defence. According to the Defence, “he was charged by his Commanding Officer with the preservation of law and order on the Island…and might use any weapons in self defence”. D1 asserted that the villages he later raided had actively aided the guerillas. Under International Law, he was allowed to take offensive measures against civilians who had taken up arms against the Japanese. He denied torturing any of the arrested persons.
D2 also raised Self Defence. He admitted having ordered the execution of two Chinese but denied the alleged torture or maltreatment. He sought to justify the executions as a preventive measure against further attacks.
D3 and 4 admitted being present at the scene and taking part in the operations against the guerillas, but denied being present at or concerned in the executions. They also denied the alleged torture and maltreatment, by claiming that evidence of witnesses was either false or too grossly exaggerated to be reliable.
D5 admitted he had executed two Chinese but said it was done according to the orders of D2. He had no alternative but to obey. He added that he fully believed the two executed Chinese were members of the guerillas force so he did not consider it was unlawful to execute them. He also denied any tortures or maltreatments.
D9 said he was not concerned in any executions or killings. With regard to torture and maltreatment, he said the most he had done was slap the Chinese who had attempted to escape from the beach, which he was authorized to do so. He denied using water torture or beating with sticks.
D7, 8, 10, 13, 14 were in charge of the Chinese tied up on the beach. They said they had acted entirely on Superior Orders and denied the alleged torture or maltreatment. D8 admitted slapping some Chinese but said it was under the order of D1. D13 and 14 said they merely guarded the arrested persons and did not beat any of them.
D15 was an interpreter and said that he had been identified so many times because of his constant presence, due to his role as interpreter. He said much evidence from witnesses was false. A witness was also called on his behalf to testify as to his good character.
D6 and 11 admitted being members of the unit but claimed that they were not present at the time of the alleged offence. They called witnesses to support their alibis which the court accepted.
D12 was not called upon for his defence, as there was no evidence against him.
D2 also raised Self Defence. He admitted having ordered the execution of two Chinese but denied the alleged torture or maltreatment. He sought to justify the executions as a preventive measure against further attacks.
D3 and 4 admitted being present at the scene and taking part in the operations against the guerillas, but denied being present at or concerned in the executions. They also denied the alleged torture and maltreatment, by claiming that evidence of witnesses was either false or too grossly exaggerated to be reliable.
D5 admitted he had executed two Chinese but said it was done according to the orders of D2. He had no alternative but to obey. He added that he fully believed the two executed Chinese were members of the guerillas force so he did not consider it was unlawful to execute them. He also denied any tortures or maltreatments.
D9 said he was not concerned in any executions or killings. With regard to torture and maltreatment, he said the most he had done was slap the Chinese who had attempted to escape from the beach, which he was authorized to do so. He denied using water torture or beating with sticks.
D7, 8, 10, 13, 14 were in charge of the Chinese tied up on the beach. They said they had acted entirely on Superior Orders and denied the alleged torture or maltreatment. D8 admitted slapping some Chinese but said it was under the order of D1. D13 and 14 said they merely guarded the arrested persons and did not beat any of them.
D15 was an interpreter and said that he had been identified so many times because of his constant presence, due to his role as interpreter. He said much evidence from witnesses was false. A witness was also called on his behalf to testify as to his good character.
D6 and 11 admitted being members of the unit but claimed that they were not present at the time of the alleged offence. They called witnesses to support their alibis which the court accepted.
D12 was not called upon for his defence, as there was no evidence against him.
Prosecutor
Capt. J.F. Reilly, Staff Capt. (Legal) HQ. ALFSEA
Defence Counsel
Capt. M. Croft, R.A.S.C
Judges
President: Lt-Col. J.C. Stewart (Dept. of JAG in India) (Solicitor)
Members: Major. M.I. Ormsby (West Yorks. R.), Capt. B.N. Kaul (Frontier Force R.)
Members: Major. M.I. Ormsby (West Yorks. R.), Capt. B.N. Kaul (Frontier Force R.)
Prosecution Witnesses
Tsang Lai-Fook(Village Elder)
Chow Por-Po(Farmer)
Tsang Lin(Businessman)
Ko Ting-Fung(Worker, Great China Match Company)
Young Tsun-Dart(Secretary, Yamati Ferry Company)
Wong Yee(Villager)
Tsang Chi-Shing(Businessman)
Tam Ling(Farmer)
Fong Lam(Villager)
Lau Nam(Villager)
Lam Mau-Fook(Farmer)
Ho Tam(Farmer)
To Piu(Farmer)
Lee Yan(Farmer)
Lam Sze-Ling(Farmer)
To kan(Villager)
Lam Ling-Kui(Unknown)
Lam Wing(Villager)
Tsang Yuk-Ming(Villager)
Wan Kam-Ho(Unknown)
Ho Kwai-Sang(Coolie of Cheung Chau Public School)
To Hi-Yeung(Farmer)
Ho Yick(Businessman)
Li Chak(Unknown)
Fan Fook(Farmer)
Ng Ying(Wife of deceased)
Yin Kuk(Unknown)
Chief Inspector Leonard Tiler(Chief Inspector)
Yeung Wing Yau(Villager)
Lo Lan(Unknown)
Oe Harukichi(Corporal, Japanese Army)
Sasaki Munihiko(1st Cl. Ptd. Japanese Army)
Kuriyama Jirokichi(Sasaki Munihiko)
Yamamoto Ishitaro(Soldier, Japanese Army)
Defence Witnesses
Kishi Yasuo(D1)
Yamashita Kasuo(Lt-Colonel, Japanese Army)
Yasuhara Toshio(Captain, Japanese Army)
Yoshinari Mikio(Sergeant)
Matsuba Masatoshi(Soldier, Japanese Army)
Matsuhoto Chosaburo(D2)
Yanagizawa Sadao(D3)
Kodama Mitsuitoshi(D4)
Uchida Hiroshi(D5)
Jomori Riichi(D6)
Okawa Shiro(Soldier, Japanese Army)
Sato Yoshio(Sergeant)
Yoshikawa Gunichi(D8)
Kamishiro Katsumasa(D9)
Takenaka Sekimatsu(Corporal)
Ando Takashi(D11)
Kiraki Yoshinori(Unknown)
Matsuo Yasuo(Soldier)
Nishizawa Kenro(Soldier)
Uemura Gisaku(Third Class Private)
Okamoto Kichitaro(Second Class Private)
Nishu Utsuki(Buddhist Church Worker)
Trial Dates
1946-03-28
1946-03-29
1946-03-30
1946-04-01
1946-04-02
1946-04-03
1946-04-04
1946-04-05
1946-04-06
1946-04-08
1946-04-10
1946-04-11
1946-04-12
1946-04-13
1946-04-15
1946-04-16
1946-04-17
1946-04-18
1946-04-20
1946-04-23
1946-04-24
1946-04-25
Judgement Confirmation Date
1946-04-25
Judgement
Held:
1. D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D9: Convicted of the full charge with the substitution of the word “six” for “nine”;
2. D7, D8, D10, D13, D14, D15: Convicted of being concerned in beating, torture and maltreatment;
3. D6, D11, D12: Acquitted.
1. D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D9: Convicted of the full charge with the substitution of the word “six” for “nine”;
2. D7, D8, D10, D13, D14, D15: Convicted of being concerned in beating, torture and maltreatment;
3. D6, D11, D12: Acquitted.
Petition
All convicted Accused submitted petitions against the findings and sentences of the Court. The Judge Advocate [unidentified Brigadier, DJAG, Allied Land Forces, SEA, 11 June 1946] advised that all the petitions were “mere repetitions of the defence of the accused put forward at trial”.
The Judge Advocate observed the following.
“The case was long and involved the calling of many witnesses to identify the accused and establish individual acts of torture and maltreatment against such of them as were found guilty. There was no doubt that on 19 August 45 an attack was made on the Japanese garrison at Lantau by guerillas. There was however no evidence that this guerilla force was implemented or assisted by the villagers whom the Japanese subsequently arrested and executed. This incident occurred during the uneasy period between the Mikado’s speech and the formal surrender and while the Japanese were during this period entitled to defend themselves against attack, they were not entitled to execute anyone without trial, least of all innocent villagers. Accused 1 and 2 admitted having ordered these illegal executions and there was ample evidence before the court to identify such of the other accused as were convicted of torturing and maltreatment of the villagers. It is clear that accused 5 apart from carrying out some of the executions took a leading and enthusiastic part in organizing and inflicting the torture. The degree of culpability of the other accused is reflected in the sentences awarded by the Court.”
He advised that the findings and charges be confirmed, and the petitions be dismissed.
The Judge Advocate noted that the Prosecutor in this case was withdrawn from further prosecutions at war crimes trials.
The Judge Advocate observed the following.
“The case was long and involved the calling of many witnesses to identify the accused and establish individual acts of torture and maltreatment against such of them as were found guilty. There was no doubt that on 19 August 45 an attack was made on the Japanese garrison at Lantau by guerillas. There was however no evidence that this guerilla force was implemented or assisted by the villagers whom the Japanese subsequently arrested and executed. This incident occurred during the uneasy period between the Mikado’s speech and the formal surrender and while the Japanese were during this period entitled to defend themselves against attack, they were not entitled to execute anyone without trial, least of all innocent villagers. Accused 1 and 2 admitted having ordered these illegal executions and there was ample evidence before the court to identify such of the other accused as were convicted of torturing and maltreatment of the villagers. It is clear that accused 5 apart from carrying out some of the executions took a leading and enthusiastic part in organizing and inflicting the torture. The degree of culpability of the other accused is reflected in the sentences awarded by the Court.”
He advised that the findings and charges be confirmed, and the petitions be dismissed.
The Judge Advocate noted that the Prosecutor in this case was withdrawn from further prosecutions at war crimes trials.
Sentence Imposed
1. D1, D2, D5: Death by hanging;
2. D3, D9: 10 years imprisonment;
3. D8: 8 years imprisonment;
4. D4: 5 years imprisonment;
5. D7, D10, D13, D14, D15: 2 years imprisonment
2. D3, D9: 10 years imprisonment;
3. D8: 8 years imprisonment;
4. D4: 5 years imprisonment;
5. D7, D10, D13, D14, D15: 2 years imprisonment
Keywords
Hong Kong; Imperial Japanese Army; Civilians; Guerilla activity; "together concerned in"; Committed; Order; Superior Order; Alibi; Torture; Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment; Unlawful Killing; Arbitrary or summary punishment; Attempted escape; Self Defence; Reprisal; Command Responsibility; War Crimes; Violations of laws and customs of war
Remarks
1 defence counsel for 15 co-Accused.
Japan capitulated on 15 August 1945, with the formal surrender of Hong Kong to Rear Admiral Sir Cecil Harcourt taking place on 16 September 1945. The events in this case took place between capitulation and formal surrender.
See the accounts of Mr. Peter Vine and Mr. Chan Sui-jueng elsewhere on this website.
Japan capitulated on 15 August 1945, with the formal surrender of Hong Kong to Rear Admiral Sir Cecil Harcourt taking place on 16 September 1945. The events in this case took place between capitulation and formal surrender.
See the accounts of Mr. Peter Vine and Mr. Chan Sui-jueng elsewhere on this website.
Files
Collection
Citation
“WO235/993,” Hong Kong's War Crimes Trials Collection, accessed April 25, 2024, https://hkwctc.lib.hku.hk/items/show/58.
Geolocation
Hello World, hello