Paul Taucher

In February 1942, during the Japanese invasion of Ambon Island in the Netherlands Indies, a large number of Australian soldiers were captured by the Japanese navy. The prisoners were held in a camp on the island, where they were subject to beatings, deprivation of food and medical care, and, occasionally, summary executions, until their liberation at the end of the war in August 1945. After the Japanese surrender, the Australian military prosecuted Japanese personnel, both as direct participants, and as commanders of the participants, in the atrocities committed on Ambon. Commanders who had not ordered a crime, nor directly participated in a crime, could be tried for the crimes of their subordinates through the doctrine of command responsibility. Military tribunals in the post-war trials used command responsibility to answer difficult questions about the extent of a commander's responsibility for the actions of his subordinates, in circumstances that traditional legal methods were ill-equipped to deal with. This chapter discusses how an Australian military tribunal used the legal doctrine of command responsibility to prosecute two Japanese officers accused of indirect liability for crimes committed against prisoners on Ambon. The trial was initially held on Ambon Island, from 2 January until 18 January 19946, and later moved to Morotai Island, resuming on 25 January and closing on 15 February 1946.

Takasaki Masamitsu was a suspected Japanese war criminal prosecuted by both the Dutch and Australian militaries after the Second World War. In both trials, he was acquitted, despite strong circumstantial evidence connecting him to several war crimes committed against Allied prisoners. Takasaki was also connected to several other war crimes, but never faced trial. Takasaki’s case provides a prime example of how suspects could exploit the system to escape successful prosecution in the post-war trials.