This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk/7380260.stm
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
Version 0 | Version 1 |
---|---|
Jury out in royal blackmail trial | Jury out in royal blackmail trial |
(about 2 hours later) | |
An Old Bailey jury is considering its verdict in the trial of two men accused of blackmailing a Royal Family member over tapes featuring gay sex claims. | An Old Bailey jury is considering its verdict in the trial of two men accused of blackmailing a Royal Family member over tapes featuring gay sex claims. |
Ian Strachan and Sean McGuigan allegedly demanded £50,000 for the tapes of remarks by a royal employee. | Ian Strachan and Sean McGuigan allegedly demanded £50,000 for the tapes of remarks by a royal employee. |
The claims included that the royal, witness A, performed a sex act on the employee, witness D, at a party. | The claims included that the royal, witness A, performed a sex act on the employee, witness D, at a party. |
Mr Strachan, 31, of Fulham, and Mr McGuigan, 41, of Battersea, both London, deny blackmail. | Mr Strachan, 31, of Fulham, and Mr McGuigan, 41, of Battersea, both London, deny blackmail. |
Sting operation | Sting operation |
Jurors have heard that the two men failed in an attempt to sell the recordings to newspapers, then approached witness A. | Jurors have heard that the two men failed in an attempt to sell the recordings to newspapers, then approached witness A. |
Mr Strachan, who is originally from Aberdeen, and Mr McGuigan were arrested after meeting an undercover police officer posing as a royal aide at a London hotel last September. | |
Mark Ellison QC, prosecuting, said the case was a "classic example of blackmail". | Mark Ellison QC, prosecuting, said the case was a "classic example of blackmail". |
Ronald Thwaites QC, representing Mr McGuigan, said the evidence against the men was "insubstantial, insignificant, and incomplete". | Ronald Thwaites QC, representing Mr McGuigan, said the evidence against the men was "insubstantial, insignificant, and incomplete". |
Previous version
1
Next version