A Brazilian cleaner accused of stealing two homemade sex videos from a judge and blackmailing another had the charges against her dropped yesterday.

Roselane Driza, 37, had been in a love triangle with two immigration judges – one of whom described her as “chilli hot stuff”. She was jailed for two years and nine months last year but her convictions were quashed on appeal.

She was due to face a retrial in two weeks but the Crown Prosecution Service said that it was dropping the charges because the two judges were too ill to give evidence. A decision will now be taken on whether the judges will face disciplinary proceedings.

One, Judge Mohamed Ilyas Khan, has not been sitting pending a decision by the Office for Judicial Complaints but remains on full pay of £101,948 a year. The other, known only as Judge J. because her anonymity was preserved as an alleged victim of blackmail, has retired early on health grounds on a medical pension.

Yesterday a spokesman for the Office for Judicial Complaints said that it wanted “to review the investigations into the conduct of Judge J. and Judge Khan afresh” and that the outcome of that review would be made public “in due course”.

Ms Driza was convicted in October of stealing videos from her lover, Judge Khan, and for blackmailing Judge J., for whom she also worked as a cleaner, for £20,000. But she was cleared of blackmailing Judge Khan, 61, with whom she was living until her arrest.

She appealed against her conviction. The grounds for appeal could not be reported except that they were on the basis of new evidence. As a result a retrial was ordered in February.

In the new trial, Ms Driza faced allegations that between January 1 and October 26, 2005, she “made an unwarranted demand for £20,000 on the female person, with menaces”.

The second charge of theft alleged that between June 1 and October 1 of the same year she stole two video cassettes “belonging to a male person”.

Ms Driza, of South Norwood, South London, pleaded not guilty to the charges at a hearing in March and was granted bail. A month later, she was told that the retrial would go ahead.

After the first trial, the Office of Judicial Complaints ordered an investigation into the behaviour of the immigration judges.

During evidence, the court was told that after Ms Driza and Judge Khan had become lovers he sent her intimate text messages and e-mails, and in one he described her as “chilli hot stuff”.

This year it emerged that Judge Khan had been receiving £8,240 a month salary since he was asked not to sit in court last September. He was on an annual salary of £98,900 last September and at the beginning of this year that rose to £101,948.

Yesterday’s verdicts of not guilty were entered by Judge Stephens, and Ms Driza was told that she could be discharged. He said that the order banning identification of Judge J. must remain.

Ms Driza blew kisses outside the court and said: “I am so happy.” She then put her arms in the air and shouted: “Freedom!”, adding: “Justice has been done. I am very happy and very proud of God.” Asked about the judges, she said: “I do not like to talk about this. I want to take this opportunity to celebrate.”

Asked whether she was still a cleaner, she replied: “I have been unemployed for two years. I have permission to stay in this country but no work visa while the Home Office considers my case. I was so stressed with the case. I will try to pass my last year of my philosophy degree.”

Ms Driza’s counsel, Frances Oldham, QC, had objected to the continued anonymity for Judge J. in view of the not-guilty verdict. She said: “Miss Driza has been vilified by the Crown as a blackmailer. She has never accepted that she is anything other than innocent of these matters.”

But Judge Stephens said that the order had been made to protect an alleged victim of blackmail and should stay “in the circumstances that have arisen and the basis on which this case is not proceeding”.

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• BGC 'set aside £40m to lure Tullett brokers'
• Legal aid review to ensure value
• Fears as 21 magistrates' courts face closure