Expert Witness. Hong Kong High Court

The case

I was appointed by international law firm Reed Smith LLP as an expert witness before the Hong Kong High Court in a criminal case involving a maritime disaster that resulted in 39 casualties.

The case had already been the subject of a 2-year official Commission of Inquiry. My role was to provide independent technical analysis of the evidence.

What I did

I conducted original data analysis on the technical evidence, going beyond what the Commission of Inquiry had examined. This meant writing original data processing software, not relying on existing tools, to interrogate the evidence from first principles. The analysis revealed facts that were previously unknown, providing critical new evidence for the defence.

The work required deep technical expertise in data analysis, simulation, and the ability to communicate complex technical findings clearly to a non-technical jury. It is the same analytical discipline I now apply in technical due diligence engagements, where the stakes are commercial rather than criminal, but the need for rigour is identical.

The outcome

I testified for 6 days before the jury. The analysis I provided was instrumental in the defence case, ultimately helping to save an innocent person from an 8-year prison sentence.

James M. Turner QC, the barrister leading the case, described me as "everything an expert should be: enthusiastic, immensely knowledgeable, personable and totally reliable."

Why this matters

This experience represents the highest-stakes application of technical analysis and clear communication. When someone's freedom depends on your ability to find truth in data and explain it to a jury, there is no room for error. It is the reason I list it on my background page, before any commercial work.

The same rigour, analytical depth, and ability to communicate complex technical reality in clear terms is what I bring to every technology leadership engagement. Whether I'm presenting to investors, boards, or technical teams, the discipline is the same. The defence-grade engineering work that followed years later operated at a different scale, but demanded the same standard: get the analysis right, because the consequences of getting it wrong are real.

Frequently asked questions

What was the Hong Kong High Court case?

A criminal case arising from a maritime disaster with 39 casualties, which had already been the subject of a two-year official Commission of Inquiry. Rafal Bergman was appointed by the international law firm Reed Smith LLP as an expert witness to provide independent technical analysis of the evidence.

What did the expert analysis find?

He wrote original data processing software to interrogate the technical evidence from first principles, going beyond what the Commission of Inquiry had examined. The analysis revealed facts that were previously unknown and provided critical new evidence for the defence.

What was the outcome of the case?

He testified for six days before the jury. His analysis was instrumental in the defence case and helped save an innocent person from an 8-year prison sentence.

How does expert witness work relate to technical due diligence?

It is the same analytical discipline: find the truth in the data and explain it clearly to non-specialists. In due diligence the stakes are commercial rather than criminal, but the need for rigour is identical.