Notice: wp_enqueue_script was called incorrectly. Scripts and styles should not be registered or enqueued until the wp_enqueue_scripts, admin_enqueue_scripts, or login_enqueue_scripts hooks. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 3.3.0.) in /home/immigration/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 4138
Immigration judge in affair with Brazilian cleaner paid £300,000 to stay home | Immigration Matters

Want to learn more about UK/EU Immigration Law? Click Act Now to learn more... Act Now

Call Us +44 7950 458 464 |
 Categories : News


In a report by the Dail Mail, the immigration judge, who had an affair with his illegally-employed Brazilian cleaner, has been paid nearly £300,000 by the taxpayer despite not working for two and a half years.

Mohammed Ilyas Khan, 63, who famously described Roselane Driza as ‘chilli hot stuff’, has received his full salary since standing down in October 2006 during her blackmail trial.

Ms Driza, 40, was accused of stealing videos showing Judge Khan having It prompted a 19-month investigation into Judge Khan’s conduct, during which time he claimed his full salary of £170,000.

For the last 12 months he has been paid his full wage of £111,155 despite having been off sick since the inquiry.

This means he has received more than £280,000 from the taxpayer, even though he has not worked for 30 months and is regarded as unlikely ever to return to his job.

The ministry of Justice confirmed that Judge Khan remained on full pay but declined to give any further explanation beyond saying that it was ‘urgently reviewing’ his status.

The revelation by the London Evening Standard will raise questions about the government’s management of taxpayers’ money.

Also, it will prompt fresh criticism from those who argue that public employees often enjoy more generous treatment than those in the private sector.

The latest controversy surrounding Judge Khan, who presided over cases at the Government’s asylum and immigration tribunal, follows earlier calls for him to be sacked for bringing the judiciary into disrepute.

Those demands were prompted by his decision to employ Ms Driza as his cleaner.

It emerged during her 2006 trial for blackmail that he sent her texts calling her ‘chilli hot stuff’ and describing her as ‘a lovely shag’.

The Office for Judicial Complaints, headed by the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, held an inquiry into Judge Khan’s conduct but decided to allow him to keep his job despite criticising his behaviour.

In a statement to announce his decision last May, Lord Phillips said Judge Khan’s health was not good enough for there to be a more in-depth investigation, despite his and the woman judge’s ‘poor judgment’ for employing Ms Driza without properly checking her immigration status.

At the time, officials indicated that Judge Khan, who went on sick leave as soon as the investigation was concluded, was unlikely ever to return to work because of his worsening health.

Under normal employment practice this might have been expected to lead to the judge eventually being placed on statutory sick pay, rather than his full salary, and considered for early retirement on health grounds.

No such action has been taken so far in Judge Khan’s case, with the result being that he has continued to receive his full pay despite there being no apparent prospect of him resuming his career on the bench.

A Ministry of Justice spokeswoman said: ‘Judge Khan has remained on full salary since sick leave began in May 2008, and we are now looking at this case.’

Judge Khan will also be able to pick up his full pension entitlement, which will be at least £48,000 a year plus a lump sum of more than £100,000.

Judge Khan was initially required to stand down after Ms Driza’s trial in September 2006.

During her trial Ms Driza, of South Norwood, who entered Britain as a tourist in 1998 and overstayed her visa, was accused of stealing videos showing Judge Khan having sex with the female judge and another woman and using them to try to blackmail the woman judge, who cannot be named, for £20,000.

Ms Driza was jailed for 33 months.

Sentencing her, the Recorder of London, Judge Beaumont, told her she was a ‘greedy and determined woman’.

But she was freed on appeal.

She was cleared in July 2007 when the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to press ahead with a retrial because both Judge Khan, who was initially labelled Judge K, and the woman judge, Judge J, were deemed to be too ill to give evidence.

Judge J, who was on a salary of £117,680, received £205,000 in pay during the 18 months she was off sick before the trial.

She retired on grounds of ill health on December 31, 2006, and receives a medical pension.

Ms Driza – whose ex-husband is an Albanian gangster convicted of murder – stayed in Britain after her permission to stay expired in 1999.

The sordid details of the blackmail case were played out in a court case which ruined Judge Khan’s reputation.

No judge has been sacked since 1983, when a member of the bench, Judge Campbell, was dismissed after smuggling whisky from Guernsey.

Source Daily Mail

If you need any immigration advice or help with Sponsorship or Work Permits, Visa or an appeal against a refusal please email:  or visit

Spread the Word, like or share this page, your friends will also love it and thanks for it.

Do you employ foreign workers? Don't risk a £20,000 fine and a possible custodial sentence. We can advice on Entrepreneur Visas, Investor Visas and Home Office sponsor licence compliance for your business. Use the button below to schedule an appointment...


Immigration Adviser, Speaker and Author See also: Profile - Profile:!/groups/14119859749/

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked by *.

You must beLogged in to post a comment.