He said that he became a “total puppy” after falling for Roselane Driza, 37.

In his closing speech, David Markham, for the prosecution, said that the immigration judge’s nickname for her — “real chilli-hot stuff” — would resonate in the judge’s mind for years to come.

For more than a week the Old Bailey has been told how Miss Driza, 37, became embroiled in a love triangle with two judges, named only as Miss J and Mr I, after working illegally at their homes. The judges had been lovers but remained close friends when they split up. The court was told that after they both dismissed Miss Driza as their home help in 2004, she began an affair with Mr I.

It is claimed that she then discovered two home-made videos, one showing Mr I and Miss J having sex and Miss J allegedly snorting cocaine and the other of Mr I having sex with a blonde woman. Miss J denies taking drugs.

The prosecution accuses Miss Driza of stealing the sex videos in August 2005 and blackmailing the judges. Mr Markham said: “It needs little emphasis that blackmail develops and thrives where there is human vulnerability and weakness.

“It does not flourish among angels and saints. It takes root where flesh-and-blood people, including judges, decidedly fall from grace and err. This allegation is not an appeal for sympathy for J and I. Each of them, you may think, got themselves into the very uncomfortable situations with the defendant. Each, with more care, might have avoided more lurid scenarios. Each of them became prey to blackmail.”

Mr Markham said that Miss J’s dismissal of Miss Driza as her cleaner after five years’ service was not a model of diplomacy, and her checks on whether she had a work permit had not been thorough enough.

He said that her ill-treatment of Miss Driza, including telling Mr I to end his relationship with her, had made Miss Driza obsessed with taking revenge.

He said that Mr I, with the passion that a man many years younger might be proud of, became a puppy of the defendant. “Miss J saw a danger where Mr I was heading with the defendant. Mr I ignored her advice and made a fool of himself in the process,” he said. “These tapes were, or for all we know are, dynamite. A 60-year-old judge romping with two women and a suggestion of cocaine.”

Frances Oldham, QC, for the defence, said that Miss Driza did not want money from Miss J, merely an explanation for why she had sacked her so rudely and why she was determined to destroy her relationship with Mr I.

Referring to two letters that Miss Driza had written to Miss J, the first asking for £1,400 in holiday pay and notice and the second for £20,000, Mrs Oldham said: “She has never sought to hide what she was doing. She has always been completely up front. Are these the actions of a blackmailer?”

Miss Driza had told the court that she was scared that Miss J would hire a hitman to kill her.

The jury is due to retire to consider its verdicts today.

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