analysis 259 managerialism in legal proceedings, 23 but we could explore more principled reasons for reform based on the lessons of psychology. For instance, would it be better to gain evidence from witnesses as soon as possible before memory fades and/or is altered by external and internal influences? Should we allow both trial and appeal courts to read and reread transcripts in an atmosphere unaffected by the drama and tensions of the courtroom and the pressure to make instant and final decisions? Whatever the merits of various suggestions for reform, the issue of witness demeanour illustrates a more general problem with much of Anglo-American legal procedure and evidence law, namely their basis in "armchair psychology" 24 or "fireside inductions" 25 about how the human mind works. 26 It seems appropriate to conclude that, if we are serious about ensuring a fact-finding system which maximises its ability to ascertain accurate facts, we need to pay more heed to the results of those who study human behaviour using accepted research methods.