The changes are designed to protect victims' rights

The Scottish Parliament's Justice One Committee voted narrowly for a compromise deal instead.

The legislation currently being drafted now states that the accused must be present when the prosecution evidence against them begins.

If they subsequently abscond, the trial judge then has a level of discretion on whether the trial should continue.

The Scottish Executive had argued that the amendment to the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill would safeguard victims' rights.

It is not right that the accused can trample over the rights of victims and witnesses simply by absconding after a trial has started Hugh Henry Deputy Justice Minister

But lawyers had described the plan as "unworkable".

The committee altered the bill to require evidence against the accused to be led before any trial could be continued in their absence.

The move was proposed by Labour Anniesland MSP Bill Butler.

Deputy Justice Minister Hugh Henry conceded that there had been "overwhelming" opinion against the executive's initial proposal.

He supported Mr Butler's plan subject to possible further technical amendments to the bill at the final Stage Three process.

Mr Henry insisted that the measure had to be available in some form, noting that in 2002 "justice was denied" to victims - as well as 1,600 witnesses - in 90 solemn trials which were cancelled because the accused absconded at some stage of proceedings.

He told MSPs: "We recognise that many people feel that starting a trial in the absence of the accused could cause difficulty.

"But we would re-emphasise our view that it is not right that the accused can trample over the rights of victims and witnesses simply by absconding after a trial has started."

Blocked amendment

Mr Butler's amendments were agreed by four votes to three .

He said they aimed to be as "flexible" as possible, and pointed out that any decision to proceed in the absence of the accused would be at the discretion of the judge.

Labour and Liberal Democrat members blocked an amendment by SNP MSP Michael Matheson to ensure that all evidence, including the defence case, is led before a trial can proceed in absence - despite this being recommended in the committee's Stage One report.

Mr Matheson described the executive's trials in absence as a "sledgehammer to crack a nut", suggesting ministers should consider what further sanctions could be imposed to provide a "sufficient deterrent" against an accused absconding.

While the move to permit trials in absence aims to improve certainty for victims, opponents argue that such trials would be subject to lengthy appeals and potentially retrials which would in turn require witnesses to retestify.