One has to remember that when LWL and LHY initiated the lawsuit against the govt., one of the major goals (in addition to getting the transcripts out of the hands of the govt. and back into the estate) was to embarrassed the unnamed family member who removed them in the first place. In this way, they hoped to show some deceit and subterfuge on the part of this unnamed family member and how sneaky she was in taking the transcripts out of Oxley. The implication is to show that this unnamed family member basically stole the transcripts from them. That is why they asked for a very specific remedy from the judge. Here is the quote from the article:
Earlier this month, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang - in their role as executors of Mr Lee's estate - had applied for leave to appeal against a High Court decision that prevented them from submitting to court an account of how their father's interview transcripts ended up with the Government after his death.
So basically, when they when to court initially, the decision went against them. But not only did the decision go against them, the judge did not even allow them to show how the transcripts left Oxley and ended up in the govt's hand. Think about this for a moment. this is a very valid point on their part. If the unnamed family member or in fact any member of the public or the govt. thinks that there are official documents in Oxley which is covered under the OSA, they should report that to the proper authorities. The govt. or Law Ministry then has to file a request with the estate through the govt to return the documents. This is the proper way to do it. A formal request has to be submitted by the govt's legal counsel to the executors of the estate stating that some information is in their possession that OSA documents, specifically the transcripts of the interviews, are in Oxley and that they would like it returned to the govt. The estate can then decide to comply or not. If they do not comply, the govt can take them to court or charged them all under the OSA for possession of restricted documents. In this particular case, the unknown family member simply removed the documents from Oxley without going through the proper procedures. Wei Ling and Hsien Yang wanted to show the court that how the documents were taken out was illegal and unauthorized, and hence if the court agrees, then by implication the person who removed them can be charged for an offence. If the unnamed person is Ho Ching, then it is a no win situation for the court. If she is charged, a whole can of worms is opened up. If she is not charged, then the people will say that the Lees can get away with anything. In any case, it does not look good for the court.
So, in the end, to prevent this thing from escalating, it was simply easier to just not allow them to disclose in court who it was that took the transcripts out, and the illegal way in which she did it.
Just my 2 cents.