A judge today accepted a request from the media to lift a court order banning the publication of his name at the end of Brazilian cleaner Roselane Driza’s trial at the Old Bailey.

Driza faces jail and deportation after she was convicted at today of blackmailing a female immigration judge, known as Miss J.

But she was cleared by a jury of blackmailing Mr Khan, with whom she was living up until her arrest, while being found guilty of stealing raunchy videos from him.

One of the videos allegedly showed Mr Khan and his former lover, Miss J, having sex and Miss J snorting cocaine. Miss J denied taking drugs.

Scotland Yard said they would not be investigating Miss J's alleged use of cocaine because the allegation was based on the video, which had since been destroyed.

Like Miss J, Mr Khan is an immigration judge and he sits as a recorder, the court heard.

The Recorder of London Judge Peter Beaumont told a special hearing that the evidence which came out about Mr Khan touched on his public role as a judge.

He ruled that the female judge was entitled to remain anonymous as she had been a victim of blackmail.

But in the case of Mr Khan - who was previously named only as Mr I, he said that the position was different.

Anthony Hudson, a barrister representing the media in a request to have the order lifted, told the judge: “The jury were not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant blackmailed Mr I, it therefore follows from that, that he was not a victim of blackmail which was the primary basis on which he was granted anonymity.”

Judge Beaumont told the court that Miss J was entitled to remain anonymous given Driza’s conviction in her case.

“However, Mr I is in a different position,” he said.

“The jury did not find the allegation of blackmail. which was centred on his testimony, proved.

“Beyond that, Mr I, in the course of his testimony in this court in particular during the cross examination, accepted criticisms of his private life and, to a degree, of his public life - the matter now in my mind his contact with the defendant after she had been charged.

“The finding of the jury in respect of the allegation of theft of his property does not in my judgment entitle the court to continue the protection over his identity.

“I can find no justification in doing so in light of the evidence given in this trial.”

Alastair Brett, a solicitor who heads News International's legal department and who represented the media, said afterwards: “It was an important and compelling public issue and the judge’s decision was highly significant.”

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