Bowe; The character of the man

As a gentleman by the name of Rupert has passed comment in this blog regarding Mr Bowe and his 'expert witness' representations to an Immigration Tribunal we thought it would be apt to clarify that story.

The full details are:-
SP and Others (Tibetan – Nepalese departure – illegal – risk) People's Republic of China CG [2007] UKAiT 00021
Asylum and Immigration Tribunal
Heard at Field House On 18th August 2006
Regarding:-
Removal to People's Republic of China of Tibetans who left China illegally on the Tibet/Nepal route would give rise to a real risk of persecution, serious harm and treatment contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR.

In the section entitled Documents before Tribunal it is said:-

"Mr Bowe, by email the night before the hearing, indicated that he could not testify for personal reasons."

On behalf of the Respondents (THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT ) it was said:-

"In particular, Mr Bowe’s report was speculative and proceeded on the basis that those who were returned would not be given travel documents upon which to return. That was incorrect. Travel Documents would be obtained."

"In relation to the report by Mr Jeffrey Bowe, that expert had last visited Tibet region in 1995 – eleven years ago. His attitude to the stories told him by the Tibetans whom he had met was to treat them as credible; in contrast, the Immigration Judges in these three cases had not believed these particular Chinese Tibetan appellants. The US Congressional report on which Mr Bowe relied was not cited correctly by Radio Free Asia – and Mr Bowe had drawn his evidence from the radio report. He argued that Mr Bowe’s assertions were not balanced or objective – there was not one positive comment in the report despite the changes reflected in the Country of Origin Information and the US State Department reports. Moreover, Mr Bowe had erroneously approached the appellants’ situation on the basis that they would be undocumented on return."

"He repeated his contention that Mr Bowe was inconsistent regarding the objective evidence and biased regarding the ‘floating population’, as he had made no reference in his report to the real evidence of progress."

One would expect Counsel for the Respondents to dismiss Mr Bowe's reports in this manner. However in the view of the independent Judges hearing the appeal:-

"We were able to place only limited weight on Mr Bowe’s evidence. He had prepared separate reports for each appellant, in virtually identical terms. However, for personal reasons he did not attend the hearing and therefore it was not possible for his account to be tested in cross-examination by Mr Payne or any difficulties in it to be resolved.

"Mr Payne highlighted Mr Bowe’s use of emotive language – for example, his reference to the Chinese authorities in China as acting “like the Gestapo” – and the fact that he claimed that he had never met a Tibetan whose story of ill-treatment he did not believe."

"In the section headed “Prison Conditions and Torture” Mr Bowe referred to a visit by Canadian officials to the “Number Two detention centre of Public Security” of Fuzhou in Mawei. He noted the Canadian team had been impressed by the detention centre but stated that this was likely to be because it was show centre, likening the visit to the visits of Westerners who had gone to Soviet Russia in the Stalin era and looked at the prisons there."

"We first considered the weight to be placed on the reports of Mr Bowe"

"There is force in Mr Payne’s submission that Mr Bowe’s report does not show clear detachment from the issues. He considers all the appellants to be credible when they have been found not to be credible by the Immigration Judges who heard their appeals. His use of language is from time to time emotive."

"We note too that Mr Bowe cited extensively from independent sources, including the US State Department Report, and that his assessment is based heavily on those sources."

Thankfully the Judges allowed the appeals of all three Tibetans but as can be seen from the foregoing they did not reach that decision on the basis of any information supplied by Mr Bowe.

It is singularly clear that Mr Bowe who claims "I have actively campaigned against human rights abuses" may have campaigned but did not have the strength of character to support the Tibetan refugees in their hour of need by actually bothering to appear at the Tribunal.

We would ask only why would Mr Bowe present himself as an expert witness and than fail to appear?

In view of the foregoing quotations from the Tribunal it appears to us that no further comment is necessary.

We look forward to Mr Bowe's response. Unlike Mr Bowe when we ask questions we leave the comments section of the blog open and available for his replies.