Scotland Yard said yesterday there would be no investigation into courtroom allegations by Roselane Driza that Miss J had taken cocaine because no evidence had been produced in court to support the claim. The court was also told that the video that had given rise to the allegation had been destroyed.

The sexual activities of Mohammed Ilyas Khan and Miss J, his former lover, however colourful, are also unlikely to be investigated, even though the parading of the details in court has done little to maintain the reputation of the judiciary.

Judges must agree when they take office to do nothing to bring the judiciary into disrepute: when they fall foul of their official code of conduct, they may face disciplinary action. Such action can range from a reprimand to the full-blown sanction of dismissal. But dismissal of a judge is extremely rare: the only formal dismissal in the past two decades was that of Judge Bruce Campbell, who was convicted of smuggling 125 litres of whisky into England from Guernsey in 1983.

A disciplinary inquiry would be the first big test for the Office of Judicial Complaints, an independent body set up in April to ensure all judicial disciplinary issues are dealt with “consistently, fairly and efficiently”.

The office, which is an arm of the Department for Constitutional Affairs, is overseen jointly by the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Jus- tice, who have responsiblity for judicial discipline and complaints.

The judge who was named yesterday, Mohammed Ilyas Khan, 60, is a designated immigration judge on a salary of £98,418 a year. Miss J is a senior immigration judge on £117,680.

They work for the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, part of the Tribunals Service, whose president is a High Court judge, Mr Justice Hodge, husband of the government minister Margaret Hodge.

The tribunal hears and decides appeals against decisions made by the Home Office on asylum, immigration and nationality, and the judges sit either alone or with another judge, and sometimes with lay members.

But yesterday the view in legal circles — where the case has dominated conversation for days — was that, however embarrassing the disclosures, dismissal was unlikely.

One district judge said: “Sexual behaviour as mentioned would not normally be a disciplinary issue. After all, both judges were not married and there are plenty of High Court judges who have been ticked off for being over- friendly with their clerks.

“However, once it becomes public it does bring the judiciary into disrepute, which is a no-no.”

He added: “It does seem as if these judges were rather randy, not only with themselves but with other judges as well. That cannot be good for the image of the judiciary, although it does rid us of other rather fusty images — more a lusty image.”

The judges’ code says that judges “should avoid situations which might reasonably lower respect for their judicial office or might cast doubt upon their impartiality as judges”.

It adds: “Judges have to accept that the nature of their office exposes them to considerable scrutiny and puts constraints on their behaviour which other people may not experience . . . They must also avoid situations which might expose them to charges of hypocrisy by reason of things done in their private life.”

Finally, the guide points out that behaviour regarded as “merely unfortunate”, if engaged in by someone who is not a judge, might be seen as “unacceptable if engaged in by a person who is a judge”.

Judges and lawyers have speculated during the trial over the names of the pair. One sent his clerk to the court to see who they were. Even those who work in the service said that the affair was not public knowledge.

But at the same time many judges, in a notoriously hierarchical legal system, were at pains to distance themselves from the scandal, pointing out that the judges were part of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, a separate judicial branch and, implicity, not mainstream. The implication is that the 500-odd immigration judges, although full-time and professional, are working in a less prestigious environment than the criminal and civil courts.

One judge expressed the view that the recent demand for immigration judges had led to large-scale appointments and possibly a lowering of standards.

“There is a feeling that, in order to get them, the ‘bar’ was lowered somewhat so the quality of appointee may not have been of the usual high standard. Even I have to admit, this pair’s shenanigans are out on the edge and I did ask myself, where did they get them from?” Recruitment has had a troubled history. In March the Lord Chancellor had to halt recruiting of an extra 100 judges in two areas because of a series of errors by government officials.

Times Recommends

• Clifford Chance sets out to improve its public image
• Bennett starts 16-year sentence for Refco fraud
• FSA challenged over insider trading case