Does the public's trust in the confidentiality of police investigations outweigh the public's right to know about allegations – and evidence supporting those allegations – against their elected officials, particularly with an election looming?

And how can those two public interests be weighed when they pivot around a leaked police dossier that has not been seen by most of those involved?

In a nutshell, that is what yesterday's arguments before the five Law Lords of the Privy Council on London's Downing Street boiled down to.

Through British Queen's Counsel James Guthrie, Attorney General Phil Perinchief and Commissioner of Police George Jackson argued that when Chief Justice Richard Ground originally ruled against the gag order preventing the media from publishing any more of the stolen dossier documenting the police investigation into allegations of corruption at the Bermuda Housing Corporation, he "seriously underestimated" the public's general interest in safeguarding the confidentiality of police investigations.

Mr. Guthrie also argued that with the establishment of a public interest in confidential Police investigations, the onus shifted to the press to prove that that interest was outweighed by the public interest in publishing the confidential investigation documents.

Though the five Law Lords – Lords Mance, Walker, Hoffman, Scott, and Neuberger — did not release the reasons behind their ruling yesterday, during Mr. Guthrie's presentation they pre-empted many of the arguments that QC Saul Froomkin, representing this newspaper and the Mid Ocean News, was to later make.

The idea of any "burden of proof" regarding public interest was "completely unhelpful", Lord Hoffman said.

When weighing one public right against another, he argued, the scales must be 'true' – meaning that both interests started with equal weight, and one interest could not take precedence over another from the outset.

As for the public interest in safeguarding police confidentiality: "If it's just more of the same (as what has already been published)," said Lord Neuberger, "what's the objection to publishing it?" If the rest of the dossier was different to what has already been published, he added: "It might be absolute dynamite and the public ought to know".

Lord Hoffman agreed: "The allegations might be right, they might be wrong, but we are talking at best about the unethical behaviour of politicians."

Mr. Guthrie argued that the allegations were just that – allegations – and that they had been investigated by Police, then referred to the proper authorities, and that no charges were made.

"But he (the DPP) is quoted as saying that it was unethical, not criminal," Lord Hoffman shot back. "If that's the case surely the public has a right to know if their politicians behaved unethically."

Mr Froomkin echoed their thoughts during his later arguments.

"These are not 'rumour', these are Police submitting files for prosecution," he said.

As for what is contained in the rest of the dossier: "There are only three alternatives. Either the balance is innocuous, or it's more if the same, in which case it doesn't matter if they publish it. Or it's worse. One doesn't have to be a genius to figure that out.

"If there is nothing to be published, it won't be published. But if there is … we are talking about allegations of corruption by the leader of the country."

Later, he added: "Does the public have a right to know that a Police investigation over two years found evidence saying the Premier was guilty of corruption – or simply unethical or even questionable conduct?"

The answer, he insisted, was yes – "especially if an election is imminent".

"This is an incredibly important matter for Bermuda," he finished, after speaking for just half an hour.

The Lords made their decision within the hour.

"The appeal ought to be dismissed," Lord Hoffman said briskly, awarding costs to the media.

It is unclear when the Lords will publish their reasons.