TWO immigration judges were facing the prospect of dismissal last night after a lurid blackmail trial exposed their love triangle with a Brazilian cleaner who worked illegally for both of them.

The Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice want to study details that emerged during the trial of Roselane Driza to decide whether the judges — one of whom sent her a text message saying she was “real chilli hot stuff” — should be disciplined.

Driza, a 37-year-old failed asylum-seeker who was once married to a serial killer, faces jail and then deportation after her conviction for blackmailing one of the judges, a woman known only as Miss J. She was also convicted of stealing two videos that the other judge — Mohammed Ilyas Khan — made of himself having sex with two women, one of them Miss J.

But she was cleared of blackmailing Mr Khan, and he was named after the trial judge agreeed to an application from The Times that he should no longer enjoy the anonymity granted to extortion victims. Mr Khan, 60, lives in North London, and earns £98,418 a year as an immigration judge. He also serves as a Crown Court recorder.

The Old Bailey trial has been the talk of the legal profession and one judge remarked that while the louche allegations could not be good for the judiciary, “It does rid us of our other rather fusty image — more a lusty image.”

An inquiry into the two judges’ behaviour would be the first test of the Office for Judicial Complaints, which was set up in April. Its main focus would be to establish whether the pair, who both sit on the tribunal that hears appeals against the Home Secretary’s decisions on asylum, immigration and nationality issues, were telling the truth when they said they did not know that Driza was an illegal immigrant. But it would also consider how much their behaviour had brought the judiciary into disrepute.

It is rare for a judge to be dismissed, but even a reprimand could effectively spell the end of a career on the bench.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the Lord Chancellor, and Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, the Lord Chief Justice, issued a statement saying that they “strongly believe that the public must have confidence in judges and take any allegations against them very seriously. Following allegations made in the trial of Roselane Driza, they are now considering whether to hold a disciplinary investigation into the conduct of the two judges involved.”

While it was their cleaner who was on trial, it was the judges’ love lives that were laid bare in public. Testimony and evidence in the trial included allegations of drug-taking, sex videos and details of intimate text messages, and e-mails, including one in which Mr Khan describes Driza as “real chilli hot stuff”. The court heard that the judge had “made a fool of himself” and admitted becoming “a complete and total puppy to her”.

Meanwhile, Driza made a series of claims about Miss J, saying that at one stage she had been suicidal and that at another time she feared the judge might pay someone to kill her.

The two judges were once lovers, but remained friends when they split up.

Miss J told the court that she believed Driza to be a refugee with a work permit when she gave her a job after advertising locally. She then introduced the cleaner to Mr Khan and he gave her work as well. When Miss J later sacked her for being “too intrusive in her personal life”, Mr Khan decided to follow suit, but over an “amicable and friendly” farewell coffee at his flat, he and Driza decided to see each other again.

Soon afterwards they embarked on an affair and Driza moved in with him. The relationship ended when Miss J found them in bed together.

Mr Khan told the court Driza had threatened to tell his superiors that he employed her while she was in the country illegally.

Driza, who denied blackmailing the pair and stealing the videos, showed no reaction to the verdicts but seemed to sneer as she was ordered by the judge to be taken to the cells.

David Markham, for the prosecution, said that she was previously of good character but was liable to deportation. Papers had been served on her.

Judge Beaumont said that he wanted reports before he sentences her on October 20, but added: “I do not want her hopes raised other than that a substantial custodial sentence will follow.”

He ordered that she be remanded in custody.

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• The best legal yarns this Christmas
• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers