I refer to your editorial of September 30 headlined, 'Aid for justice', commenting on our legal aid refusal in Mohinder Kaur's case and in relation to the judicial review proceedings involving some 5,800 migrants. As you may be aware, there were times when our decisions in granting legal aid were criticised as being too liberal. In this instance, we have been characterised in your editorial as being too restrictive. Whatever may be the public perception of our decisions, the fact of the matter is that our decisions are always made after a careful examination of the facts and issues of the cases. I do not suggest for one moment that our decisions are impeccable. If we are wrong, our decisions can always be corrected by the Registrar of the High Court upon an appeal against our decisions, or by a judge upon a judicial review of our decisions. In this case, Mohinder Kaur did appeal against our refusal, but her appeal was dismissed by the Registrar of the High Court on July 23. Your editorial seems to suggest that where a case has been ruled arguable the applicant should automatically be entitled to legal aid. That cannot be right and there is no provision to that effect in our ordinance. There is a legal precedent to show that we are entitled to consider the future prospects of the ultimate outcome of the substantive application. There is also a legal precedent indicating that for a case to be merely arguable is not enough to satisfy the legal merits test for the granting of legal aid. In your report of September 30 headlined, ' 'Tension' shows in legal aid refusal', the judge in Mohinder Kaur's case was quoted as saying that there could be no realistic hearing without a lawyer to represent the woman. That may well be true, but it does not follow that the gap must be filled by legal aid or the omission supplied by public funds. In England, it was in recognition that in the real world gaps in provision do and will always occur leaving people who cannot afford a lawyer without assistance, that a Pro Bono Unit was set up by the Bar in 1995. The unit has now become an established feature of life at the English Bar. In Hong Kong, as public awareness of legal rights is enhanced, it is envisaged that the demand for access to justice will also increase. Given that there are limitations to any legal aid system and that therefore legal aid may not be available to everyone in need of legal help, the involvement of lawyers willing to assist such people on a pro bono basis is only natural and should be encouraged. Regarding the migrants' case, your readers may wish to know that the Court of Final Appeal will be asked to consider the reinterpretation this month in the case of the 17 overstayers who have been granted legal aid to defend the appeal. The case of the thousands of migrants may stand or fall with the case of these overstayers who represent migrants being affected by the reinterpretation in various ways. At the present stage, it is clearly difficult to predict the outcome of this landmark appeal and whether there will be scope for further litigation and if so on what grounds. For these reasons, we consider the judicial review proceedings recently commenced by private solicitors on behalf of these migrants seeking to challenge the Government's failure to implement the Court of Final Appeal's previous judgment, to be premature. It is worth mentioning that our legal aid refusal in these proceedings was upheld by the Registrar of the High Court and that the Court of First Instance has deferred hearing the leave application in these proceedings until after the determination of the landmark appeal by the Court of Final Appeal. CHAN SHU-YING Director of Legal Aid