ABSTRACT
It is interesting to contrast the intense debate that has taken place within the medical profession about what constitutes best evidence practice with the almost complete absence of discussion of best evidence practice within the legal profession. It is commonly said, of course, that lawyers are not interested in evidence and the truth, yet the legal system seeks to reach truthful verdicts and is strongly criticised when it fails to do this. There is no shortage of suggestions for reform but these often fall on deaf ears within the legal profession, especially it would seem when the suggestions are made by scientists, psychologists and other professionals dedicated to seeking the truth. Indeed, one of the persistent themes of legal and psychological literature on legal processes is that there has existed a credibility gap between psychologists and lawyers whereby the claims of the former to be able to make positive contributions which have relevance for legal processes are disputed by the latter (Clifford, 1979).
