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/7371225.stm

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Court told of 'gay sex predator' Court told of 'gay sex predator'
(about 5 hours later)
A man accused of blackmailing a Royal Family member told a court his intent was to unmask a gay sexual predator. A man accused of blackmailing a Royal Family member told a court his intent was to unmask a "predatory homosexual".
Ian Strachan, 31, and Sean McGuigan, 41, are accused of demanding £50,000 to prevent them selling tapes of alleged gay sex claims against the royal.Ian Strachan, 31, and Sean McGuigan, 41, are accused of demanding £50,000 to prevent them selling tapes of alleged gay sex claims against the royal.
But Mr Strachan said the taped claims by a royal employee, known as witness D, were to warn the royal against that employee's predatory gay advances. But Mr Strachan said the taped claims by a royal employee, known as witness D, were to warn the royal about his employee's behaviour.
The two Londoners deny blackmailing the royal, known as witness A.The two Londoners deny blackmailing the royal, known as witness A.
Mr Strachan's statements at London's Old Bailey marked the beginning of the third week of the trial, and the first time the court has heard from either of the accused.Mr Strachan's statements at London's Old Bailey marked the beginning of the third week of the trial, and the first time the court has heard from either of the accused.
'Attempted assault''Attempted assault'
The court heard that the property developer, of Fulham, south-west London, had struck up a friendship with witness D in 2006. The court heard that Mr Strachan, of Fulham, south-west London, had struck up a friendship with witness D in 2006.
But Mr Strachan described the man as subsequently revealing himself as a predatory homosexual who had tried to drug and assault not only himself, but two of his friends as well.But Mr Strachan described the man as subsequently revealing himself as a predatory homosexual who had tried to drug and assault not only himself, but two of his friends as well.
The court heard that this had been the motivation for a plot hatched by Mr Strachan and his co-defendant, Mr McGuigan, of Battersea, south London, to record allegations the man had made about the royal.The court heard that this had been the motivation for a plot hatched by Mr Strachan and his co-defendant, Mr McGuigan, of Battersea, south London, to record allegations the man had made about the royal.
That would have been blackmail Ian StrachanThat would have been blackmail Ian Strachan
Their aim, Mr Strachan said, was not to make any money but to get the employee into trouble and get him sacked.Their aim, Mr Strachan said, was not to make any money but to get the employee into trouble and get him sacked.
Mr Strachan said the pair had even discussed outing witness D by publishing the tapes on YouTube.Mr Strachan said the pair had even discussed outing witness D by publishing the tapes on YouTube.
But Mr Strachan described a conversation with a News of the World journalist who had told him the tapes would be worth between £25,000 to £50,000. But Mr Strachan described a conversation with a News of the World journalist who he said had told him the tapes would be worth between £25,000 to £50,000.
He then went on to describe subsequent conversations with a friend of the royal, known as witness C.He then went on to describe subsequent conversations with a friend of the royal, known as witness C.
The court heard that when Mr Strachan told witness C of the money he had been offered for the tapes, witness C offered him 73,000 euros (£57,000).The court heard that when Mr Strachan told witness C of the money he had been offered for the tapes, witness C offered him 73,000 euros (£57,000).
Jerome Lynch QC, representing Mr Strachan, asked his client of witness C: "Why wouldn't you have asked him for money?"Jerome Lynch QC, representing Mr Strachan, asked his client of witness C: "Why wouldn't you have asked him for money?"
To which Mr Strachan replied: "Because that would have been blackmail."To which Mr Strachan replied: "Because that would have been blackmail."
Mr Lynch then asked him why he thought it was acceptable to make the tapes in the first place. Mr Strachan insisted that he never raised the question of receiving money for the story, but admitted telling witness C that there was press interest in the story varying from "75p to £100,000".
Mr Strachan said: "The material was legally obtained." Under questioning from Ron Thwaites QC, for Mr McGuigan, Mr Strachan admitted that he had falsely claimed to hold a degree in law from Edinburgh University during the course of his work as an agent for fashion stylists.
"I may have done in circumstances where I have been entering into a deal where someone might have been trying to take advantage of me," Mr Strachan said.
The trial continues.The trial continues.