The study of the interrelationship between law and psychology is increasingly common. Historically such work was conducted by psychologists on legal issues (Memon et al., 2003; Kapardis, 1997; Roesch et al., 1998), particularly witness testimony, false memory and eyewitness identification (Cutler and Penrod, 1995). More recently, scholars in both disciplines have exhibited a mutual interest in broader issues (McEwan, 2003; Kapardis, 2002; Bull and Carson, 2003). This interest may represent an increased willingness on the part of the law to learn from psychology. More cynically, it may represent lawyers’ increased wariness about psychology, which they perceive to be trespassing into ever-more sacrosanct territory – both in terms of psychology’s acceptance in the courtroom and its potential to challenge hallowed precepts of the common-law tradition, especially those relating to the quality of evidence, the manner of its presentation and the manner of decision-making (McEwan, 2003: Ch. 8). Psychological experts would do well to bear in mind this underlying anxiety of many legal practitioners, which is shared by the judiciary.