WO235/1117

WO235/1117

Committing a War Crime
“in that he at Shanghai between 1st September, 1942, and 30th November, 1942, as a Sergeant in the Shanghai Kempeitai, was, in violation of the Laws and Usages of War, concerned in the ill-treatment of civilian residents of Shanghai and in particular of HENRY FORSYTHE PRINGLE, ALEXANDER HAINDRAVA, ERNEST LE ROY HEALEY, MORRIS JOSEPH SOULEVITCH, BORIS S. FRANK, THE REVEREND W.E. HUDSPETH, KENNETH WILLIAM JOHNSTONE, and WILLIAM SLADE BUNGEY detained in the cells of the Headquarters of the Shanghai Kempeitai at the BRIDGE HOUSE, causing them all physical suffering”.

WO235/1117

Sergeant Major Yokohata Toshiro

Military Court for the Trial of War Criminals [unknown]

1948-12-06

Committing a War Crime
“in that he at Shanghai between 1st September, 1942, and 30th November, 1942, as a Sergeant in the Shanghai Kempeitai, was, in violation of the Laws and Usages of War, concerned in the ill-treatment of civilian residents of Shanghai and in particular of HENRY FORSYTHE PRINGLE, ALEXANDER HAINDRAVA, ERNEST LE ROY HEALEY, MORRIS JOSEPH SOULEVITCH, BORIS S. FRANK, THE REVEREND W.E. HUDSPETH, KENNETH WILLIAM JOHNSTONE, and WILLIAM SLADE BUNGEY detained in the cells of the Headquarters of the Shanghai Kempeitai at the BRIDGE HOUSE, causing them all physical suffering”.

The Accused was a Sergeant Major, attached to the Legal Section of the Northern Branch section of the Shanghai Kempeitai. He worked at Bridge House, which was a place of detention for civilian residents who had been arrested by the Kempeitai on suspicion of being agents of the Allies (espionage).

The Shanghai Kempeitai was assigned to extract confessions from the detainees. The members were under pressure from their superiors to produce evidence of espionage. The Judge Advocate, in reviewing the case, submitted that “it appears that the authorities were not concerned as to whether in fact that individuals were guilty of espionage so long as they were able to satisfy their superiors by the production of an admission of guilt. The methods employed in extracting these “confessions” from people who were mostly innocent” included torture.

The Accused pleaded guilty, but the submission was rejected by the court after hearing the Accused’s character witness, Major Albert Edward Kyte. This meant the proceedings had to follow the regular pattern for trials on a not-guilty plea.

The Prosecution called no witnesses to testify about what had happened at Bridge House in Shanghai, and 2 witnesses on secondary issues. The case was supported by numerous Affidavits/Sworn Statements/Depositions by persons claiming to have been ill-treated by the Accused (among them, Alexander Haindrava, Ernest Le Roy Healey, Henry Forsythe Pringle and Kenneth William Johnstone). These contained allegations that the Accused engaged in maltreatment of detained persons, including through the direct application of various forms of torture, including “water torture”, hanging, thrusting spikes under the fingernails, burning, beating and electrical shocks.

In his testimony, Major Kyte stated that the Accused had told him that “he had used the Water treatment on Pringle, Frank and Healey and that he had also given electrical treatment”.

At trial, the Accused did not testify or call any witnesses.

However, the Defence raised the good character of the Accused. He was said to be a Nichirenist, a devout Buddhist and to have been deeply ashamed of his actions. Three main arguments were raised:
(a) The Accused did what he did on the instructions of his superiors, specially that his superior, Sgt. Major Tomura allegedly ordered the torture in order to produce evidence of espionage in order to satisfy his own superiors, and in relation to the treatment of specific detainees such as B. S. Frank and H.F. Pringle;
(b) The Accused was completely repentant for what he did and readily confessed to his crimes; and
(c) Punishment would have a very harsh impact on his family.

The Defence stressed the following in its submissions for mitigation: “Japanese military training emphasizes one thing above all others. That is, that when an order, legal or illegal, is given by a superior officer, the order will be implicitly obeyed”. It stressed the importance of repentance and the potential for reformation. “It is now recognized that a man’s environment plays a large part in causing him to commit crime, and that the penalty for any crime committed should be considered in the light of the character of the convicted man as well as in the act perpetrated by him”.

Maj. Peter Clague, Royal Artillery, Office of the Deputy Director of Legal services, CHQ, FARELF

Mr Kakehi Masao, LLB, Barrrister at Law, Tokyo

President: Lt.-Col S. R. Kerr
Members: Major B.H. Craig, the Buffs; cap H.M. McLeod-Martin, Middleser Regiment

Capt. W.R.L. Herries, Royal Sussex Regiment

Albert Edward Kyte (Officer)

Peter Clague (Prosecutor)

1948-12-09

1948-12-11

1948-12-20

1948-12-20

1948-12-20

1949-02-18

Guilty

The Accused submitted a Petition on 21 December 1948. Eight supporting Petitions were filed by Japanese persons supporting his case. The Accused complained, inter alia, about the inconsistency of the sentencing practices. Specifically, he argued that despite making a guilty plea (rejected), and showing genuine remorse and helpfulness (confirmed by the testimony of Major Kyte, the Officer Commanding British Minor War Crimes Liaison Section in Tokyo), he received an unduly severe sentence. He compared his 15 year sentence to the 12 year sentence imposed on the unrepentant Sgt. Yoshida Bunzo in a connected case tried before a panel (Case No. 235/116) presided over by Lt. Col. Massie. Unlike this case, that case involved maltreatment to death, and the unrepentant accused there got a lighter sentence.

In reviewing the case, the Judge Advocate commented that the Accused’s own Petition “discloses no new grounds, in my view, for interfering with the Finding and Sentence of the Court and subject therefore to any mitigation of the Sentence. I am of the opinion that the Finding and Sentence of the Court may be confirmed”. As for the eight third-party Petitions, they all submitted that considerable hardship would be caused to the Accused’s relatives if a heavy sentence were to be imposed. The Judge Advocate advised the Confirming Officer to “bear in mind these petitions” in reviewing the 15 year sentence.

In relation to the sentence that was imposed, the Judge Advocate advised that “the actions of the Accused towards these prisoners were so cruel that he knew perfectly well that he was acting entirely contrary to all conceptions of humanity and if he had wished to do so, he could have refrained from carrying out the alleged acts of brutality which were deliberate acts of commission and did not arise as a result of negligence”.

As for the claim of repentance, the Judge Advocate advised that “this trial was convened to determine the guilt and to punish the accused for his past conduct and not for his present attitude which may perhaps be influenced by the fact that he has now been divested of his former powers”.

In the circumstances, the Judge Advocate contended that the 15-year imprisonment sentence was reasonable.

15 years imprisonment

Shanghai; Kempeitai; Gendarme/Gendarmes/Gendarmerie; Place of Detention; “concerned in”; Torture; Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment; Guilty Plea; Mitigating circumstances; Superior Orders; War Crimes; Violations of laws and customs of war

This was one of two new courts established after completion of the work of the original two war crimes courts, to deal with cases from Shanghai.

The handling of the guilty plea warrants closer observation. The plea was rejected by the Court after hearing Major Kyte, the Officer Commanding British Minor War Crimes Liaison Section in Tokyo, as a Defence character witness. He testified that his experience of interrogating the Accused was “the first time that I ever interrogated a Japanese kempei who was honest, frank and apparently regretted his actions”. The Court gave no reason for rejecting the guilty plea, and this was the only actual testimony that could have caused the Court to turn the plea into a not guilty plea. In his petition against the conviction and the 15 year sentence imposed, the Accused pointed out “that the Court in this case had no grounds on which to alter my plea, and that I was prejudiced by such an alteration”. His complaint was that because a number of affidavits were filed on behalf of the prosecution, he did not have an opportunity for cross-examination.