ABSTRACT
In principle, the witness must be an expert in the particular system of foreign law.20 Although evidence of the relevant legislative enactments should be given, the witness will be required to express an opinion on questions of interpretation. At common law, such opinion evidence could only be given by an expert and such expertise had to derive from practical experience within that particular system. Thus, in Bristow v Sequeville,21 evidence as to the law in force at Cologne could not be given by a Prussian consular official in London who had studied in Leipzig and had acquired familiarity with the Code Napoleon. Baron Alderson appeared to rule that actual practical experience before the courts of a particular jurisdiction was essential; the learned judge observed:
Although it was probably true that, until the end of the 19th century, the courts were minded to demand that the witness had actual practical experience,22 there are some signs of flexibility as the century progressed. In the case of Re The Goods of Dhost Aly Khan,23 a diplomat based in the Persian Embassy in London was allowed to give evidence as to the law of Persia after it was demonstrated that there were no professional lawyers in Persia and that diplomatic staff were trained in the relevant law.
