Archive for September 24th, 2006

I don’t really know where to start on this one…

It is not often that The Times headlines scream like a tabloid.. but I suppose this story from the world of horsehair wigs and gowns made it almost irresistable to the Times. I have chosen The Times version of events for you to read for the full story – because I enjoyed their treatment of it and their headline which I quote below.

it is not often that I get the opportunity to combine bizarre stuff with our profession.

Briefly….if you cannot be bothered to read The Times report for the full story (It is, actually, worth doing so) …

There are two judges involved (Asylum and Immigration Tribinal, lest anyone think that we might be dealing with the High Court/Puisne/Red variety of judge) – Judge ‘I” (Male) and Judge”J” (Female). We do not know their names because of an anonymity direction made by the presiding judge at The Old Bailey (Source: Ruthie: Geeklawyer blog).

Judge “I” started an affair with his Brazilian cleaner (Ms Driza/”Ms Chili Hot”.) Brazilian cleaner was introduced to Judge “I” by his former lover, Judge “J” – one assumes for a cleaning position. Unfortunately Judge “I” decided that the Brazilian cleaner’s cleaning skills were so good that he decided to start an affair with her. (Come on Baby, ‘wipe’ my fire?)

It is difficult to follow the story as told in The Times report – but it appears that when the female judge (“J) decided to dispense with the Brazilian cleaner’s services, Judge “I” thought it ‘prudent’ to end end Ms Driza’s employment with him as well.

I have not, of course, seen the papers and rely on the precision of The Times newshound for my info on this.

Brazilian cleaner then pops over to see Male judge “I”. It is clear, from the Times report, that their relationship of Employer/Employee, at least, had ended when this meeting occurred. The meeting was, according to The Times, ‘amicable and friendly’. Touchingly, male Judge “I” and Brazilian cleaner made a coffee and then cleaner left saying ‘see you again’.

I have to resort to a quote from The Times to keep myself, let alone you, the reader, clear on the timeline.

“A week or two later she came round again. “It became clear she wanted to pursue (Judge) J for what she claimed to be compensation for unfair dismissal. I started seeing her socially,” said Judge I.

Asked by David Markham, QC, whether socially became “intimately as well?” the judge replied: “Yes it did. She stayed at my place. I did not tell J about the relationship at that stage.”
So, it appears that… Judge “I”, who had been Judge”J’s” lover, on hearing that Brazilian cleaner was about to sue his former lover for unfair dismissal, decides to see the cleaner socially and have ‘intimate relations’ with her.

The story continues…

Female judge “J” decides to call on her former lover (Judge “I”). Presumably, as she was being sued by her cleaner for unfair dismissal, and assumed that Judge “I” had dispensed with the Brazilian cleaner’s cleaning services as well, she did not expect to find her former cleaner at Judge “I’s” residency, let alone to find her sitting on Judge “I’s” lap.

Not surprisngly when Judge “I” saw Judge “J” the next day (The Times reports) Judge “I” said: “she was pretty appalled that I had lied to her. Although we were not living together we were still good friends. The defendant continued to live with me for some time, but eventually I persuaded her to leave the flat. J and I were really good friends and I did not want to jeopardise that.”

Judge “I” is then reported to have taken the view that it was time to give Brazilian cleaner the ‘heave-ho’ and ask her to leave. She did – reluctantly. Judge “I” then changed the locks!

But then… the cleaner returned. There was a knock at the door. Judge “I” lets her in. Judge “I” lets her sleep in the spare room, expecting her to go the next day.

We then learn that the cleaner stayed ‘for months against his wishes’.

Judge “I” makes it clear to the cleaner that he does not want her to be there. Brazilian cleaner responds...”She would not go and if he tried to do anything she would tell the Lord Chancellor that she had been illegally employed by J and himself”

One can imagine that this information would be a bit difficult for Judge “I” who, one must remember, is an Immigration judge. The cleaner also mentioned that “she had been to the House of Commons and posted letters to the Prime Minister, Home Secretary and others and that she had a contract with a newspaper prepared to pay her £20,000 for her story.”

The Brazilian cleaner, Judge “I” is reported as saying ” was living rent free.’ The judge was doing most of the shopping. So.. we have a Brazilian cleaner shacked up in the spare room of a judge’s residency – against his will, and he is doing ‘most’ of the shopping. One assumes he is doing all the cleaning as well – unless he has employed another cleaner to do it. It is difficult to see why Brazilian cleaner, living rent free, doing a spot of alleged blackmail, should suddenly decide to get the cleaning kit out and do a bit of hoovering.

Then we learn… that Judge “I” goes off on holiday to Canada with Judge “J” – leaving Brazilian cleaner at the residency in the spare room and returns from canad to find her still lurking in the spare room.
Unfortunately Judge “I” learns that the Brazilian cleaner has found videos of him having sex with other women. Unfortunately one of the videos showed Judge “I” and Judge “J” having ‘intimate relations’ and Judge “J” snorting cocaine in Thailand. See Times Report.

You may read the full reports in The Times – so I will simply end this post with a final quotation…

“(The relationship between Judge “I” and the Brazilian cleaner) continued until Miss Driza was arrested, at his house. In e-mails to Miss Driza, the court heard yesterday, that Mr I described her as “real chilli-hot stuff” and “a lovely shag”.

Read Full Post »