STORY OF THE WEEK/Ansbacher Deposits: On Monday two unidentified business people will ask the High Court to hear their application about the Cayman deposits behind closed doors. But what about the Constitutional stipulation that justice be administered in public?

"Justice shall be administered in courts established by law, by judges appointed in the manner provided by the Constitution and, save in such special and limited cases as may be prescribed by law, shall be administered in public."

So reads article 34 of the Constitution, the primary source for Irish law. The stipulation that the law be administered in public is designed to protect the integrity and authority of the legal system.

Recent controversied that have centred on developments happening out of public view include Mr Bobby Molloy contacting the judge in a constituent's case, which led to his resignation from the Government; the Hugh O'Flaherty affair, where some discussions occurred in chambers; and the Catherine Nevin/Judge O'Buachalla affair, where details of a pub licence were changed during a hearing in chambers.

In a ruling some time ago involving an appeal by The Irish Times against a decision to restrict reporting of a Cork drugs case, Mr Justice Ronan Keane said: "The most benign climate for the growth of corruption and abuse of powers whether by the judiciary or the legal profession is one of secrecy."

Next Monday in the High Court two unidentified business people are seeking permission to make an in-camera application about one of the most sensitive secrets of the past 30 years, the Ansbacher deposits.

Ironically, the case is to be heard by Mr Justice McCracken, the High Court judge whose report in the summer of 1997 into payments from Dunnes Stores to Mr Charles Haughey and Mr Michael Lowry led in turn to the investigation into the activities of Ansbacher (Cayman).

One reason for the High Court inspectors' investigation was that the level of public concern and suspicion about the deposits was such that not to have an investigation might add to that suspicion.

The Tánaiste, Ms Harney, who initiated the appointment of the High Court inspectors, said earlier this week that she would not like to see the High Court application by the two unidentified individuals take place behind closed doors.

The Director of Corporate Enforcement, Mr Paul Appleby, to whom the Ansbacher report will be given after it is presented to the High Court, is set to oppose the hearing of the application in camera. He is to be represented by Mr Eoin Fitzsimons SC.

The two unidentified applicants are to be represented by Mr Michael Collins SC, who as barrister to the McCracken Tribunal played a role in the discovery of the Ansbacher deposits.

When the court hears the matter on Monday the first item on the agenda will be whether the application for an in-camera hearing can itself be held in camera. Legal sources say important matters of Constitutional law are at stake and that the possibility exists that any ruling by Mr Justice McCracken on the matter, which could be a reserved decision, will be appealed to the Supreme Court.

The potential exists, therefore, that the publication of the long-awaited Ansbacher report could be delayed until the autumn or winter.

All of this may be viewed with dismay by Ms Harney and the PDs. With the general election due next month, the PDs were anxious that the lengthy and expensive investigations that Ms Harney has initiated could be shown to have borne fruit. Publication of the report prior to the election now seems unlikely. It is thought that once the election campaign is officially launched, publication of the report, if it was ready, would be held over anyway until after the vote.

Many millions of euros of taxpayers' money have been spent since 1997 on inquiries initiated by Ms Harney and involving NIB, Ansbacher (Cayman), Dunnes Stores, Mr Michael Lowry's Streamline Enterprises Ltd, and a host of other companies.

While some of these have already borne fruit, political opponents of Ms Harney have questioned the length of time these inquiries have taken and asked when the public is going to see the list of Ansbacher names.

Because the Ansbacher list will include Mr Haughey and Fianna Fail TD, Mr Denis Foley, the PDs coalition partners are understandably less enthusiastic about the report being published prior to the election. As well as Mr Haughey and Mr Foley, the list of names will include prominent businessmen with strong links to Mr Haughey and the party. Some of these businessmen will be persons whom it is known or suspected gave money to Mr Haughey. Mr Haughey's friend and "bagman", the late Mr Des Traynor, was the main architect and operator of the deposits.

As the Ansbacher report will also include the names of a few figures associated with Fine Gael, some in that party is also less than enthusiastic about the report being published prior to the general election.

When the Moriarty Tribunal was being established, to follow up on the McCracken report, the Government resisted suggestions that it identify and name Ansbacher account holders. Fine Gael also opposed such a measure. Its then finance spokesman, Mr Michael Noonan, responding to Labour's suggestion that the tribunal be charged with naming names, said he was against "some kind of prurient trawl" through the private affairs of law-abiding citizens.

What happened then was that Ms Harney initiated some company law inquiries, which in turn led to the appointment of the High Court inspectors in September 1999. It seems that had the current case against the inspectors not been taken, their report might have been published before the election. One source who had an Ansbacher account and who has had dealings with the inspectors, said he formed the impression in the middle of March that the report was complete.

Since late last year the inspectors have been giving people due to be mentioned in the report the opportunity to respond to the findings being made in relation to them. This process may have ended in late March. The responses or comments may be included in the final report.

The report will list the account holders who have been identified, and company law offences (including attempting to defraud the Revenue) that may have been committed.

"It's a case of 'you have an apple in your pocket, you've been stealing apples'," said the account holder.

Another source said representations have been made so that a clear distinction should be made between account holders who may have been involved in tax evasion, and those who had legitimate accounts.

The case due to be heard by Mr Justice McCracken is understood to involve two business people who want their names to be kept out of any published report. The reasons why they believe their names should be kept out are not known.

If their case cannot be held in camera, there is little point in their continuing with their application. When the case was listed for mention earlier this week it was entered as "Motion - in the matter of McCann Fitzgerald," the latter being the solicitors' firm that is representing the two applicants.

One legal source said cases can only be heard in camera in instances prescribed in statute, and that there is no law stating that applications to do with investigations by High Court inspectors, can be heard in camera.

Last year the courts refused a request from a man ("Mr McC") who wanted to have a judicial review in open court of a case he was a party to in the family courts, where all hearings are in camera. The judge found that if "McC" was allowed to have the matter heard in open court, it would frustrate the intentions of the Oireachtas to have family law matters held in camera.

This might have some bearing on the case being taken before Mr Justice McCracken, the legal source said, as it might be argued that as the High Court inspectors' work takes place in private, judicial reviews of that work should also be held in private. However, the case the courts ruled on last year involved family law, where in-camera hearings are prescribed.

Another relevant case involved the late Ms Brigid McCole, whose story was covered in the recent RTÉ drama No Tears. Ms McCole, who died as a result of being infected with contaminated blood, sought to sue the Blood Transfusion Supply Board in 1996 without revealing her identity.

The High Court refused to allow her do so, ruling that the law must be administered in public, save where prescribed in law, and that for this reason she could not take a case without revealing her identity. She then revealed her identity.