M43
Morotai Trial M43 was an Australian war crimes trial conducted on Morotai between 25 and 28 February 1946. The case concerned the murder of four Royal Australian Air Force airmen, Scott, King, Wallace and Wright, who were executed at Tantui Prisoner of War Camp on Ambon during the Second World War. Three Japanese naval officers were charged in connection with the killings.
During the trial, one of the accused maintained that he believed the airmen had been lawfully tried by a temporary court martial before their execution. The court found all three accused guilty and sentenced them to death. In reviewing the proceedings, however, the Judge Advocate General questioned whether the most junior officer could reasonably have appreciated that the executions were unlawful and recommended that his sentence should not be confirmed. The review also drew attention to evidence suggesting that the executions had been ordered by a senior staff officer, raising important questions of command responsibility. This page summarises the trial, the accused, the sentences imposed and the surviving archival records, including the Judge Advocate General's report.
NAA
List of accused
TAKAHASHI/TOYOJI
Morotai trial
KATAYAMA/HIDEO
Morotai trial
Warrant of execution signed by Sturdee on 6/4/46.
Katayama insisted that the PWs had been tried and sentenced in court martial. JAG believes that Lt Comdr Baron Takasaki gave instructions to Katayama at HQ that the men were to be executed without trial - in obedience to these orders Katayama proceeded with the execution. - he may be held responsible for it though the fact that he was ordered by a much superior staff officer may be considered in mitigation of the sentence of death.
I am of the opinion that the very junior officer Takahashi cannot have been expected to have any knowledge of the illegality of the execution and his sentence should not be confirmed.
I would draw your attention to the fact that the name of Lt Comdr Baron Takasaki who was found not guilty in a previous court martial concerning two airmen executed at another place, occurs right through these proceedings and there appears to be little doubt that he, being a high officer, was responsible for the execution of some of these airmen. The evidence in this case concerning him might be reconsidered with the previous evidence at the trial when he, in my opinion, was very luckily found not guilty.
JAG 15/3/46