Counsel for the Attorney General told the High Court yesterday that the claim being made on behalf of two unidentified persons that they be granted anonymity in court proceedings relating to a report into the affairs of Ansbacher (Cayman) bank was unprecedented and without foundation in law or fact.

Mr Feichin McDonagh SC said public confidence in the administration of justice could only be maintained by ensuring that proceedings were open to the public.

Mr Justice McCracken reserved judgment in the proceedings brought by two persons who are seeking to prevent their names being published in the report by the court-appointed inspectors into the Ansbacher bank's affairs. The court was told that the expression "Ansbacher client" had become synonymous in this State with saying a person was a tax evader who used offshore accounts to evade tax.

Mr Justice McCracken has been asked by lawyers for the two persons to decide as a preliminary issue, whether he has a discretion to direct that the identities of the two not be disclosed in the court proceedings. If he decides he has a discretion, he will then have to consider whether the identities should be disclosed.

Mr McDonagh for the Attorney General said the requirement that justice be administered in public applied irrespective of any personal distress or damage that might result to the two persons. The two persons had sought to cloak their application in a constitutional right to one's good name, but that could not hide the fact that they could show no more prejudice than persons whose applications had previously been refused by the courts.

Mr McDonagh said it was clear the two persons laid considerable weight on the assertion that if the application before the court was heard in public they would be denied any benefit that a possible challenge to the inspectors' provisional findings might bring.

Mr McDonagh submitted that the inspectors had advised the solicitor for the two persons that the inspectors would make it clear in their report that the persons they had identified as "clients" of Ansbacher conducted their business with the company in many different ways. The fact that a person was so identified did not imply that he or she had evaded the payment of taxes.

There was no basis for claiming the two persons would undoubtedly suffer damage to their good names and reputations. The inspectors' preliminary report would state the two persons were "clients" of Ansbacher Cayman and it would be made clear this did not necessarily imply any wrongdoing.