There are lawyers and former judges who disapprove of tribunals because they are less rigorous in terms of the proof sought, a matter on which I have mixed views, partly based on history, and about what can, in effect, be political trials. On the other hand, in the absence of virtual proof or overwhelming prima facie cases, how does one get to the bottom of matters arousing great public concern in a democracy? These matters do not always relate to politicians. I refer to current or recent tribunals relating to the conduct of the Garda, the Blood Transfusion Service Board, etc.