Judges' 'chilli hot stuff' maid cleared of blackmail

The case of the Brazilian cleaner accused of blackmailing a judge ended as sensationally as it had begun when all charges were suddenly dropped.

Roselane Driza blew kisses and shouted out "freedom" as she left the Old Bailey yesterday, having heard that she would no longer face a retrial.

The case had proved an embarrassment to the judiciary after it was revealed Judge Mohammed Ilyas Khan, 61, who was already having a relationship with a female judge, had begun an affair with Ms Driza, who worked for both of them.

The 37-year-old Latin American had been accused of stealing two sexy videos from him while blackmailing the woman, known in court as Judge J, to the tune of £20,000.

She was sentenced to 33 months in prison last October, but won an appeal in February after new evidence emerged. She was then granted a retrial.

But yesterday, just a fortnight before the case was due to go back to court, Judge Martin Stephens was told that the Crown Prosecution Service had decided not to proceed.

John Black QC, for the prosecution, told the court that no evidence was being offered because the two judges were now ill, the woman having retired on a medical pension. "There is no foreseeable prospect of either of these witnesses being well enough to give evidence at a trial in August, or possibly ever," he said.

Formal not guilty verdicts were entered at the Old Bailey yesterday.

Outside court, Ms Driza said: "Justice has been done. I am very happy and very proud of God." Adding that she was no longer working as a cleaner but hoped to complete her last year of a philosophy degree, she said: "I have permission to stay in this country, but no work visa while the Home Office considers my case."

Ms Driza, of south London, had denied allegations that between 1 January and 26 October 2005 she "made an unwarranted demand for £20,000 on the female person, with menaces". The second count alleged that between 1 June and 1 October of the same year she stole two video cassettes "belonging to a male person".

The court heard that after the illegally employed cleaner and the £100,000-a-year judge became lovers, he sent her intimate text messages and emails, including one in which he referred to her as "chilli hot stuff". But when the relationship broke down it was alleged she threatened to report the immigration judges to the Lord Chancellor if she was not given compensation. She was said to have taken two videotapes - one of Judge Khan having sex with Judge J, as well as another showing him with another woman.

In evidence which could not be revealed until now, the appeal heard from nine other immigration judges and Judge J's former husband, casting new light on her credibility.

It painted a very different picture from her claim that she was a woman of high integrity who did not use bad language.

Judge J's former husband claimed that during their marriage she had displayed extreme xenophobia, regularly swore and treated people she believed to be her inferiors with contempt.

Colleagues claimed her behaviour was intemperate and she used bad language. They claimed she had made a false allegation of assault against one of them.

After the first trial, an investigation was ordered into the behaviour of the judges by the Office of Judicial Complaints. Yesterday, it said that the latest development would prompt a review of the case, and that "the outcome of the review will be made public in due course".