Defendant: Baba, Kensako, civilian
employee, Kawasaki POW Camp 3D
Docket Date: 59/60/ Dec. 4 - 11, 1946, Yokohama, Japan
Charge: Violation of the laws and customs of war: 1. Did willfully and
unlawfully jointly mistreat a Canadian POW
Specifications:beating using among others fists, sticks and wooden rifles;
kicking him; walking on his body
Verdict: 4 1/2 years CHL
Reviewing Authority Recommendations: For violation of a minor regulation
in the camp regulations, accused administered this beating. No permanent
injuries resulted but the PW required treatment and hospitalization for
injuries. The three accused was chastised by the camp commander and made
to apologize.
Reviewing Authority: Accused Baba stated that he slapped the PW twice
for carelessness when the window pane was broken. When the PW left the
pay office, he was not injured at all and bore no marks of physical violence.
After this, the accused went to the kitchen and did not know about hte
PWs later condition. He was called in front of the camp commander who
warned them about punishing PWs without his knowledge and told to apologize
because of the incident and he did so. Yamanaka was not present in front
of the commander because he had taken no part in the incident.
Prosecution Arguments: The accusation against the three accused is that
they, "in a concerted action, committed an aggravated assault"
upon a PW. "No conspiracy is alleged nor is such allegation necessary
to establish a joint offense. What is necessary is proof that the accused,
acting with common intent or design, did together accomplish the alleged
assault." The defense witnesses and the accused provide the more
satisfactory and complete account of the incident and the causes which
could lead to the conclusion that they are more credible. But, there are
inconsistensies such as the light slapping causing the window to break.
Even though the sole prosecution witness and all the defense states that
Yamanaka did not participate, the affidavits accuse him directly. Thjs
evidence, if credible, is sufficient for a finding of guilt.
Defense Arguments: Edward A. Doering, Reviewer, Judge Advocate Section
Judge Advocate's Recommendations:
