SCOTLAND is on the cusp of a judicial revolution as the country's courts service paved the way for pre-recorded video testimony.

Senior judges and officials have proposed changing age-old rules requiring most witnesses to appear in person.

Instead, they suggest that many people could be interviewed in advance - at a convenient time - and recordings of their evidence shown to court.

The proposals - formally set out in a lengthy paper published by today - have been pitched as a dramatic bid to unclog the courts system and ease the ordeal of testimony for witnesses and victims.

But the paper's authors, led by judge Lord Carloway, admit their plans will require a dramatic change in Scotland's traditional adversarial courtroom culture and substantial investment in IT.

They said: "The increasing complexity of some crimes combined with the tightening constraints on all public services means that there is already considerable strain on the justice system.

"Cases take longer to process, with, arguably, a detrimental effect on the ability of the system to do what it is meant to do ascertain the truth.

"This strain could be eased substantially if we were to

take advantage of the increasingly high quality, now ubiquitous medium of video recording."

Scottish courts are already scheduled to undergo a digital transformation, with use of in-court screens for CCTV evidence.

This is part of a Scottish Government investment that will also see police, prosecutors and other partners equipped with a new generation of technology.

However, Lord Carloway and his colleagues acknowledge that pre-recorded video statements by witnesses would be a step even further than that mooted by the government.

The courts system would have to have a whole new way of securely storing video files with such evidence.

New legislation would be needed to ensure that video interviews could be prepared and authenticated - and witnesses notified that their testimony may be used in court, and that they may be cross-examined on its basis.

Courts leaders clearly hope that early disclosure of pre-recorded statements - like that of CCTV evidence - will result in earlier pleas, speeding up justice. They are not suggesting that such evidence should not be challenged.

However, the authors admit they they will have to convince both defence and prosecution agents to buy in to a change in culture to make this work. They hint at changes to legal aid that might encourage earlier pleas. They said: "The experience in Australia and England suggests that, despite the strength of adversarial traditions in these systems, practitioners are prepared to adapt to new procedures which involve pre-recording.

"It takes leadership from the judiciary at every level, with the willingness to adopt a robust approach to case management, the identification of the benefits to all concerned, and adjustments to the system of remuneration to incentivise the early engagement of the defence."

Defence advocates have been sceptical over the proposals. Brian McConnachie QC - when the idea was first mooted late last year - said:

"I don't follow that logic. If the evidence that somebody is to be giving is controversial then whether they pre-record it or not they are going to have to turn up in order to be cross-examined and the jury are going to have to be able to see how they react to that cross-examination."

Vulnerable witnesses in Scotland do sometimes already give evidence by live video link - as do many people giving testimony in Scottish courts for use in foreign cases.

Victim support Scotland has welcomed an extension to this principle by allowing pre-recording. Its spokesman said: "Many people are frightened to appear in court and give evidence. This perhaps approaches it from a better angle."

The paper from the Scottish Courts Service will now be submitted to the Scottish Government.