Peer into court

January 19, 2011 8:30 AM

Lord Taylor of Warwick faces a third day in court today, as his trial on charges relating to his expenses continues.  The trial, taking place at Southwark Crown Court in London, has attracted high levels of media attention.  The 58-year-old former Tory peer faces six counts of false accounting, relating to claims he made as a member of the House of Lords under the members' reimbursement allowance scheme, between March 2006 and October 2007.

Yesterday the court heard from his half nephew, Robert Taylor, who said he was "shocked" and "quite angry" when he heard that the politician had used his address as main place of residence on his claim forms.  A jury heard that the peer submitted forms saying his main residence was in Oxford, when Lord Taylor actually lived in Ealing, west London. The court was told that that he claimed for travel expenses between the two cities and for night subsistence to cover being in London.  The prosecution says the peer has agreed that he never stayed at the address in Oxford and had no legal or financial interest in it.

We’ll be watching the rest of the trial closely and will release a statement with our reaction to the proceedings, as soon as they are concluded.Lord Taylor of Warwick faces a third day in court today, as his trial on charges relating to his expenses continues.  The trial, taking place at Southwark Crown Court in London, has attracted high levels of media attention.  The 58-year-old former Tory peer faces six counts of false accounting, relating to claims he made as a member of the House of Lords under the members' reimbursement allowance scheme, between March 2006 and October 2007.

Yesterday the court heard from his half nephew, Robert Taylor, who said he was "shocked" and "quite angry" when he heard that the politician had used his address as main place of residence on his claim forms.  A jury heard that the peer submitted forms saying his main residence was in Oxford, when Lord Taylor actually lived in Ealing, west London. The court was told that that he claimed for travel expenses between the two cities and for night subsistence to cover being in London.  The prosecution says the peer has agreed that he never stayed at the address in Oxford and had no legal or financial interest in it.

We’ll be watching the rest of the trial closely and will release a statement with our reaction to the proceedings, as soon as they are concluded.

Latest Blogs:

TaxPayers' Alliance Icon

Get nanny out of the nursery

12:00 PM 20, Oct 2017 Ben Ramanauskas

TaxPayers' Alliance Icon

Magna Carta - A Very English Tax Revolt

9:09 AM 26, Sep 2017 Daniel Pryor

TaxPayers' Alliance Icon

Who will defend the defenders?

12:03 PM 20, Sep 2017 Duncan Simpson

TaxPayers' Alliance Icon

What’s wrong with the all-ages graduate tax?

6:09 PM 18, Sep 2017 Jan Zeber

TaxPayers' Alliance Icon

Should taxpayers fund Zumba, facials and spas for the NHS?

4:02 PM 18, Sep 2017 Ben Ramanauskas