A relative of a former Tory peer from the West Midlands accused of making false expenses claims has said he was "shocked" and "quite angry" when told that the politician had used his address as main place of residence on his claim forms.

Robert Taylor, half nephew of Lord Taylor of Warwick, told a jury at Southwark Crown Court: "I was shocked, I was quite angry, actually, because I had always wondered why he had been quite so friendly, because we didn't on the face of it have a lot in common."

He added: "At the point where we were being doorstepped by the media, I suddenly realised that maybe his wasn't actually a real friendship at all."

The court has heard that the peer submitted forms saying his main residence was in Oxford, where his half nephew lived, when Lord Taylor actually lived in Ealing, west London.

He claimed for travelling expenses between the two cities and for night subsistence to cover being in London, the jury has heard.

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.

Lord Taylor is on trial facing six counts of false accounting, relating to claims he made as a member of the House of Lords under the members' reimbursement allowance scheme, on various dates between March 2006 and October 2007.

The Tory peer - full name John David Beckett Taylor - denies dishonestly claiming £11,277.

Robert Taylor, a professional photographer, said he has lived for eight years at the house in Oxford which is owned by his partner Dr Tristram Wyatt. He said contact with Lord Taylor had been "sporadic" over the years.

Asked what he would have said if Lord Taylor had asked if he could use his address as his main place of residence, he said: "I would say, 'no - why?'

The prosecution claims that Lord Taylor, 58, of Lynwood Road, Ealing, lied on the forms to get the expenses, and that he was being dishonest when he submitted them.

Mohammed Khamisa QC, defending, has said that others who spoke to Lord Taylor told him his claims were "acceptable" because members did not receive a salary.

He has told the jury: "You will hear that others with whom he worked, other peers he spoke to, had all told him that what he was doing was acceptable."

Earlier, the judge said he and Lord Taylor used to work together in Birmingham and may have attended the same “social occasions”.

Mr Justice Saunders said he and Lord Taylor had practised as barristers at the same time in the city. But he insisted there was no reason why he should not sit in judgment on his former colleague.

The judge said he had raised the issue as soon as he found out he would be trying the case. Neither prosecution or defence lawyers have objected.

Mr Justice Saunders said: “For a while we both practised as barristers in Birmingham. We were in different chambers but from time to time we would see each other in crown court, although we both practised in different areas of the circuit.

"Lord Taylor ceased to practise some years before I became the Recorder of Birmingham seven years ago. We could have attended the same social occasions organised by the circuit but not many.

“To my knowledge I have never attended a private social occasion at which he has been present. I have not seen him since he ceased to practise as a barrister in Birmingham.”