Leading scientific experts have called for the legal profession to become better informed about how memory works and suggested judges should direct juries on how they should treat recall ­evidence.

The report of an international working group, published last week by the British Psychological Society, set out guidelines dispelling many commonly held beliefs about memory recall and the perceived reliability of witnesses in court cases.

It states that memories are records of people’s experience of events and not records of the events themselves. Memories will always be incomplete and feature forgotten details and gaps, it adds. The report also warns that people may recall events that in reality they have not experienced.

Professor Martin Conway of Leeds University, the main author of the report, said: ‘In many legal cases, memory may feature as the main or only source of evidence, and is nearly always critical to the course of the case.

‘When the only evidence is from memory, those memories need to be evaluated in a scientifically informed way. And it’s up to the judge to make sure that happens.’

He suggested that a direction from the judge based on the observations in the report would help juries to assess the reliability of witness testimony.

At present there is no direction commonly given to juries concerning memory and it is left up to the jury to evaluate a witness’s memory.