NOT ALL judges have good judgment. This elementary principle of practical jurisprudence is confirmed by the extraordinary events revealed at the Old Bailey blackmail trial of Roselane Driza. But however fascinating it is to look through the window into judicial lives, there is no justification for the inquiry by the Office for Judicial Complaints into the conduct of the judges concerned.

The plot of this judicial Neighbours was more complicated than a whole month of soap opera episodes. Mohammed Ilyas Khan is an immigration judge. He lived with a female immigration judge, Judge J, who employed Driza as a cleaner. Driza is a Brazilian without a work permit. When Judge Khan and Judge J split up, Driza continued to work for both of them. Judge J began an affair with another immigration Judge, Mr N. Judge J sacked Driza for intruding into her private life. Driza had sex with Judge Khan. He sent her e-mails telling her she was “real chilli-hot stuff” and “a lovely shag”.

Judge Khan decided to end his relationship with Driza because he realised that she might be “trouble”, but continued to have sex with her until her arrest for blackmail. Judge Khan had made videos of himself in bed with Judge J, and of himself in bed with another woman. Driza was accused of blackmailing Judge J and Judge Khan by threatening to send the videos to the Lord Chancellor and by threatening to tell the media that Judge J had employed her without a work permit. Driza claimed that the video also showed Judge J taking cocaine. A claim she denied. Driza was found guilty of blackmailing Judge J and of stealing the videos. She was acquitted of blackmailing Judge Khan. Driza will be sentenced this month.

The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice are concerned that “the public must have confidence in judges”. The Office for Judicial Complaints is to investigate the conduct of Judge Khan and Judge J, who will not hear cases while the inquiry proceeds. There is no need for an inquiry. The basic lessons to be learnt from this saga are obvious. First, there really is no fool like an old fool. Secondly, be very careful what you include in your e-mails, as they may cause embarrassment if read out at the Old Bailey. And thirdly, it was unwise for all immigration adjudicators to be given the new title of “Judge” in 2004. A rose by any other name would not smell as sweet to journalists.

It is not a disciplinary offence for a judge to have sex (though many lawyers contemplating such an event will experience a similar reaction to the thought of their parents in bed). The Guide to Judicial Conduct published by the Judges’ Council does contain a section on “Use of Equipment”, but disappointingly it concerns computers. Nor is it a disciplinary offence for a male judge to have sex with more than one woman, or for judges to choose unsuitable partners. If it were, there would be vacancies on the Bench.

There is no evidence that Judge Khan or Judge J took cocaine. They denied it at the Old Bailey trial. And the police could not find the video that Driza stole and which she alleged included drug taking.

Employing foreign citizens who lack work permits can cause problems for lawyers. President Clinton had to withdraw two successive nominations for the post of Attorney-General in 1993 because the nominees, Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood, had both employed illegal immigrants as nannies. Judge J and Judge Khan denied knowing that Driza lacked a work permit. If they are not telling the truth, it would be a criminal offence. This is a matter for police inquiries and for the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service. It is impossible to understand what an inquiry on this topic will achieve.

The Guide to Judicial Conduct says that “a judge shall conduct himself or herself in a way that is consistent with the dignity of the judicial office”. Until a few years ago, the Lord Chancellor used to ask all those he was considering appointing to the Bench: “Is there anything in your private life which would, if revealed, be an embarrassment?” I had thought we were now sufficiently mature to understand that judges are flesh and blood. If you prick them, they bleed. No judge is a hero to his cleaner. Neither Judge Khan nor Judge J is responsible for their private lives being exposed to public gaze. They were the victims of the criminal conduct of Driza.

If Judge Khan and Judge J cannot do the job for which they are paid, they should be removed from office. If they are charged with criminal offences they should be suspended pending trial. But otherwise they, and their sad private lives, should have been allowed to return to the obscurity from which they briefly emerged.

The author is a practising barrister at Blackstone Chambers in Temple and a Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford