The Serious Fraud Office has been investigating fraudulent transactions between the UK
based ‘Finance UK Bank’ and the Zambia based ‘United City Bank of Zambia’. They wish
to call Michael who has 30 years’ experience as a banker in Zambia, to give expert
evidence on Zambian Banking Law. However, Michael has no formal qualifications
despite an international reputation as the leading expert in Zambian Banking Law.
Which ONE of the following statements about whether Michael can be an expert witness in the
case is CORRECT?
Select one:
A. Michael can be called to give expert evidence as a foreign Banking Law expert.
B. Michael cannot be called to give expert evidence on these matters due to his lack of
formal qualifications in the field of banking.
C. Michael can be called to give expert evidence as a foreign Banking Law expert, but
only if accredited to do so by the Home Office.
D. Michael cannot be called to give expert evidence as a foreign Banking Law expert as
his experience is outside the UK.
ANSWER [A] is correct. See Ajami v Comptroller of Customs: a banker with 24 years’
experience of Nigerian Banking Law could be called as a foreign law expert. [B] is wrong for
reasons stated in [A]. [C] is wrong because an expert does not necessarily need formal
qualifications. [D] is also wrong: the fact that Michael’s experience is outside the UK does not
disqualify him from being an expert in this case. Indeed this experience provides him with
relevant expertise.
The correct answer is: Michael can be called to give expert evidence as a foreign Banking Law
