Abstract:
Following the end of the Second World War, the British military
conducted hundreds of minor war crimes trials in the Far East in which
hundreds of Japanese war criminals were tried and punished. There were
mixed opinions about these trials. The few scholars who studied some of
them held view that generally the trials were fair trials. However, some
Japanese war criminals hold the view that they were victors' trials, in
which only ordinary soldiers used as pawns for the crimes of senior
officers. Some of the victims held the view that the British war crimes
authorities were inefficient, the war crimes courts were lenient and the
sentences were heavy if the victims were Whites and light if they
happened to be Asians. This research evaluated the above opinions and
the fairness of four important trials - the Gozawa Sadaichi and Nine
Others, the Penang Kempetai, the Double Tenth and the Singapore
Chinese Massacre Trials. The result shows that some of the views were
not true or only valid in certain aspects. The Gozawa Sadaichi and Nine
Others Trial was a fair trial but with the main criticism that the accused
were convicted on affidavit evidence and those who gave the affidavits
were not available in the court for the Defence's cross-examination. The
Penang Kempetai Trial and the Double Tenth Trial could be models of
fair trials. The Singapore Chinese Massacre Trial while satisfying most
of the criteria of a fair trial, suffer from some unfairness in relation to the
death sentences given to Lieutenant-General Kawamura Saburo and
Colonel Oishi Masayuki. On the whole, the research has highlighted the
quality of justice rendered in these trials. The research also highlights
some of the legal issues involved in the Japanese atrocities and British
minor war crimes trials
