Should we or should we not find out the identities of all the beneficiaries of the Ansbacher deposits? The question has been fought over by the political big guns and, presumably, will continue to be for a long time. And it is much more than the latest political football because it touches on deeper questions about the role of the State, due process and the law in relation to individual actions.

The answers are not easy. There are a lot of assumptions which have to be made in reasoning on the issue.

Some of those assumptions can be agreed by all. People have the right to privacy. The separation of powers is a critical part of our democracy. Due process is essential to justice.

And, I think we can agree, privacy, the separation of powers and due process do not come free. There will always be a price to pay, a cost for justice.

It may be that some guilty ones go free; it may be just the cost of running a bureaucracy. But a cost there is, always. We have to be prepared to pay that cost in whatever form it presents itself, when these fundamental civic values are at stake.

We can also agree that tax evasion is wrong, as wrong sometimes as grand larceny on other citizens. We agree that it should be the case that our tax compliance system should require someone to be prepared to lie to evade tax. That is, the questions asked must be clear and exhaustive, not open to ambiguous, though technically truthful answers. We know that once a person is prepared to lie, everything becomes possible. A liar lives in a different world, a Darwinian, evil world.

We can agree that the Revenue Commissioners should have enforcement powers to unearth as much evasion as possible. But we agree that there are civil liberties, and that law enforcement faces trade-offs against those liberties. There are no set limits to those trade-offs a society can choose whichever ones it wants, but we recognise that beyond certain points, essential freedoms are compromised.

We agree that occasionally the Government can set up Tribunals of Enquiry which can investigate and make public matters of public interest, even enquiring into the affairs of private companies or persons for this purpose. Can we agree that the Beef Tribunal was, at least, a legitimate exercise, for example?

So much to agree on. How does it help Mr or Ms Citizen to know how to answer the question about Ansbacher beneficiaries?

Say the answer is, yes, we should find out through a tribunal all those who benefited from the Ansbacher accounts. Mr and Ms Citizen will find out that a group of Mr and Ms (unlikely, but not impossible females) Fat Cats stashed money away in this very suspicious arrangement. Will we be told the purpose of the arrangement? No one will say, nor can they be forced to. "I trusted Mr Traynor implicitly."

The beneficiaries will be disgraced, for sure. The conclusion will be easily drawn. Guilty by acclamation, probably correctly so.

But will we know, with the standard of proof required in justice for all citizens, if tax evasion took place? Tax evasion requires a lie. We cannot definitively know there was tax evasion unless we know the content of the statements made about the person's tax affairs. We must see the tax returns to the Revenue. We must also know how to compute them. We must be able, expertly, to hear arguments that the Returns are compliant.

The Revenue thus acts for the Citizens. Indeed, when tax evasion is established and either a prosecution is brought or a settlement is made then the names of the offenders become public. Due process takes place. So, the Citizens might well conclude that pursuing the Ansbacher beneficiaries through a tribunal delivers some quick benefit identification, punishment by disgrace, deterrence at the cost of compromising due process. Is the benefit really worth the price? Is there not a way to achieve the gain by increasing some Revenue powers for example without paying a high price? Indeed, hasn't the skipper sometimes to decide to let a catch get away rather than steer the boat into treacherous waters?

It's a trade off. We make many. The media argue, usually successfully, for the acceptance of the confidentiality of sources, even sources involved in the vilest criminality, which has no basis in law. We usually accept that trade-off foregoing information leading to arrests for the sake of maintaining a free press.

There are unpalatable trade-offs to be made in life and in government.

Oliver O'Connor is an investment funds specialist