Judge David Pearl is a soft-spoken academic who has an air of quiet authority.

Every day he must face the huge responsibility that goes with his job.

For, as the chief immigration appeals adjudicator, he has the power to decide the fate of thousands of refugees and asylum seekers.A glance at his impressive CV confirms that this is no ordinary learned judge.

Years of law studies, culminating in a PhD from Queen's College, Cambridge; called to the Bar in 1968; a Cambridge don from 1972 to 1989; professor of law at East Anglia 1989 to 1994; and an immigration appeals adjudicator from 1980 to 1992.Earlier this year Judge Pearl, aged 51, frustrated the government by ruling that the home secretary must reconsider his decision to expel the Saudi dissident, Mohammad Al-Mass'ari.

In the end, the Saudi won exceptional leave to remain in Britain, with wider than usual rights attached, in a decision Judge Pearl describes as 'correct and appropriate'.He also objects to elements of the government's Asylum and Immigration Bill, currently in the House of Lords.

In particular, he condemns the loss of adjudicators' powers to refer cases back to the Home Office on substantive grounds in 'fast-track' cases.

'We feel this is unfortunate because we may not have sufficient information to make the decision,' he says.Also, giving evidence to the Glidewell panel on the Bill, Judge Pearl warned that the 'fast-track' provisions could result in greater delays for lower priority asylum cases instead of, as intended, speeding up applications.This is of great concern to Judge Pearl, because even now he has a major staff problem.

He urgently needs another 30 or so adjudicators to deal with an expanding caseload and a growing backlog.

The present number of 35 full-time and 108 part-time judges is inadequate, he says.

Last year there were 4000 cases outstanding.

Now there are 15,000 and by th e end of this year there could be 20,000.The quality of candidates for adjudicator must be high, he says: 'It's an important job, a matter of life and death sometimes.

There is European law to apply and the complexity of the cases makes the work fulfilling.'The job, which pays £62,000-a-year full-time, is demanding, but may suit solicitors or barristers seeking to 'put something back into the community', he adds.

'It could be the first step in a judicial career.' Part-timers would be expected to work at least 20 days a year, but preferably the equivalent of one or two days a week.Immigration law expertise is not essential, since a training programme is provided.Asked whether adjudicators are ever troubled by having to enforce tough immigration measures, Judge Pearl warns that it can be difficult, especially when you instinctively believe an applicant's story, but he or she has insufficient proof to back it up.

In such cases, 'it's not an easy job being an adjudiLORDS FORCE CHANGES TO ASYLUM BILLTorture victims should stand a better chance of obtaining asylum in Britain following an amendment to the Asylum and Immigration Bill last week that removed them from the 'fast-track' process.

In a blow to the government, the cross-party House of Lords rebellion carried the change by a majority of 143 to 124 votes.Tabled by the Bishop of Liverpool, the amendment excludes from fast-track handling cases 'a person who can show a reasonable claim that he has been a victim of torture' or who can claim to fear persecution in a country which has a 'recently documented record of torture'.A further effort to reduce the number of cases dealt with by the fast-track procedure failed by 104 votes to 127.

It sought to remove the words 'in general' from the judgment that there is 'in general no serious risk of persecution' of the asylum applicant.Also in committee in the Lords, the Law Society still hopes to amend the Bill to prevent solicitors from becoming caught up in measures to stop immigration racketeering.The government had earlier accepted that advisers had to be involved in deception before they committed an offence.

But the new clause said they only needed to have 'reasonable' cause for believing an application was bogus to be liable.'This would place an intolerably high burden of proof on solicitors,' says Karen MacKay, secretary to the Society's immigration law sub-committee.'The Home Office misunderstands the solicitor's role, which is certainly not to test whether clients are telling the truth.

The government appears to be expecting solicitors to do the job of the immigration authorities.'The Lords rebellion followed a damning verdict on the Bill by an independent panel headed by former Court of Appeal judge Sir Iain Glidewell.

It argued that the Bill is doomed to failure and could increase racial discrimination.It concluded that far from speeding up the application and appeals procedures, the Bill, which this week entered its committee stage in the House of Lords, was 'self-defeating' in this regard.And it was concerned that the so-called 'white list' of safe countries would not protect asylum seekers with a well-founded fear of persecution.The panel also found that clauses which increased the range and seriousness of immigration offences 'could well have a damaging effect on race relations -- contrary to the government's stated intentions'.Cl 8, which makes a criminal offence of employing someone not entitled to work in the UK, was 'dangerous', it said.

It urged the government to scrap the clause.