Concerns about these rights and principles were also raised in these places when pre-recording was introduced, but the evaluations carried out in those jurisdictions do not provide evidence that those concerns played out in practice. The key is that the pre-recorded cross-examination is not mandated; it is an option to be used in appropriate cases and not to be used where it would jeopardise the fairness of a trial. And where it becomes apparent that pre-recorded cross-examination may present more of a risk than a benefit, it will also be open to the prosecutor to change that mode of evidence. The concerns raised about pre-recorded cross-examination are understandable. That is why the legislation prescribes its use as an option rather than a presumption. In those cases where pre-recorded cross-examination would jeopardise trial fairness or where the benefits are outweighed by the risk of making things worse for the witnesses, a different mode of evidence will be used. In the cases where it does neither of these things, it should be an option.