Re: Michael Barrymore demands £2.5 million compensation for 'wrongful arrest' re Stuart Lubbock death - but Essex Police only offer £1 (Daily Mail & Daily Mirror, 21 Dec 2016)

by scratchy 06.10.18 16:33

Didn't know where to post this. It's a short video I made this morning (first one in about 3/4yrs) about Michael lying blatantly about not using PR firms. Hes really adamant about it which makes me as suspicious as he is adamant. Anyway it was all easily found doing a few searches.

He seems to lie so fluidly:

by **Tony Bennett** 09.11.18 20:53

scratchy wrote:Didn't know where to post this. It's a short video I made this morning (first one in about 3/4yrs) about Michael lying blatantly about not using PR firms. Hes really adamant about it which makes me as suspicious as he is adamant. Anyway it was all easily found doing a few searches.

He seems to lie so fluidly:

@ scratchy   That was a good little video, I watched it, well done. I know for a fact that Barrymore actively cultivated press editors and top people in the media. He was what you call 'Box Office' and ANY story about him would sell newspapers. My book was serialised in the News of the World in 2007. The Assistant Editor there, Phil Taylor, was telling me that Barrymore was always popping in there to promote himself. And he arranged that interview with Martin Bashir

============================================================================

Media Release – Immediate

9pm Friday 9 November 2018

TERRY LUBBOCK, father of his murdered son STUART LUBBOCK, to attend the High Trial of Michael Barrymore -v- Essex Police, 21 & 22 November 2018

On Wednesday 21^st & Thursday 22^nd November, the High Court will conclude a case which represents a further travesty of injustice in this case.

The High Court has already decided, without knowing much of the evidence in the case, that Michael Barrymore is entitled to compensation because Essex Police wrongfully arrested him on suspicion of murder in June 2007. (At that time I was representing Terry Lubbock and still am today). There was a technical breach of the regulations relating to Barrymore’s arrest. He was arrested by a Detective Sergeant not a Detective Inspector because Essex Police had to arrest three individuals that day on suspicion of murder - and they were short-staffed. But over and above that, the Judge at a previous hearing accepted Barrymore’s claim that there had been insufficient evidence to arrest him on suspicion of murder. Barrymore is claiming £2,500,000 compensation.

The hearing on 21^st and 22^nd November therefore is purely to decide how much compensation he will receive. Terry Lubbock will be attending the hearing and Essex Police have agreed to provide a car to take him there and back. I will be accompanying him. Terry has considerable difficulty walking and has to use a catheter. But in his mind he remains determined to be present and hopefully to see some sort of progress towards the authorities recognising that his son was murdered and bringing the perpetrators to justice.

ENDS

Contacts: Terry Lubbock Tel: 01279 426975, lives at Abbott Care Home, Harlow. He can speak to anyone at any time but may be in hospital for a procedure on Monday 12^th November

Tony Bennett, representative, Tel: 01743 249 283 Mobile: 07835 716537:

BACKGROUND FACTS

Stuart Lubbock, aged 33, attended a party at Michael Barrymore’s Roydon, Essex home at about 2am on Saturday 1 April 2001. At 5.46am that morning local man Justin Merritt ‘phoned Essex Ambulance Service saying that they had just pulled out a man from Barrymore’s outdoor swimming pool. This, we are sure, was a fabrication, one that many sections of the media maintain to this day. We are sure that Stuart was already dead as a result of a sexual assault which had killed him up to an hour before the ambulance was called.

An Inquest in September 2002 returned a surprising ‘Open’ verdict, despite overwhelming evidence that he had been savagely sexually assaulted that night and died as a result.

In January 2006 Terry Lubbock asked me for help, fired up by Barrymore trying to make a comeback on Celebrity Big Brother.

The following events then took place:

I compiled a dossier of evidence for Essex Police, setting out evidence that Stuart Lubbock had never been in the swimming pool that night - and that six men and one woman present that night had lied comprehensively about that night’s events. I submitted it to them in August 2006

On 1 December 2006 Essex Police began a re-investigation into the case.

In early 2007 I assisted Terry Lubbock to make a series of misconduct complaints against Essex Police. The Independent Police Complaints Commission upheld several of them, sharply criticising them for having left the crime scene in charge of Michael Barrymore’s Manager, Mr Mike Browne, and for ‘losing’ valuable evidence.

I also submitted a claim to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) for Terry Lubbock and his divorced wife. Both received awards after the CICA agreed that we had satisfied them that it was more likely than not that Stuart had been murdered.

In June 2007, Michael Barrymore, Jonathan Kennedy (Barrymore’s then lover) and Justin Merritt were arrested on suspicion of Stuart’s murder. They were not charged because of ‘insufficient evidence’.

In July 2007 Terry Lubbock and I published our book Not Awight: Getting Away With Murder, which is still on sale (please contact me).

In 2016 I assisted Terry Lubbock to apply to the Attorney-General for permission for a second Inquest to be held. This was refused the following year.

ENDS

by Doug D 22.11.18 13:36

Plenty of early reports such as this from Court on Tuesday, but then it all went quiet.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6410417/Michael-Barrymore-receive-nominal-damages-wrongful-arrest.html

Tony, are the three Judges just thinking about it, or have they imposed reporting restrictions or something?

by **Tony Bennett** 22.11.18 16:30

Doug D wrote:Plenty of early reports such as this from Court on Tuesday, but then it all went quiet.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6410417/Michael-Barrymore-receive-nominal-damages-wrongful-arrest.html

Tony, are the three Judges just thinking about it, or have they imposed reporting restrictions or something?

A short report on Barrymore v Essex Police, Court of Appeal, 20 November 2018

I attended with Terry Lubbock.

I need to put on record my thanks to Essex Police for providing the Family Liaison Officer and a female colleague to transport us to and from the hearing.

Unfortunately we had to leave the Court at 2.30pm to meet with the police and get our lift back to Harlow.

In court for this truly absurd set of legal proceedings were three Law Lords, headed by Lord Leveson, four Court staff, two Q.C. barristers, their clerks, several solicitors and assistant solicitors, several reporters, a documentary team and a few members of the public. Quite crowded for a small court.

I sat two rows right behind Michael Barrymore. He was nearly rigid throughout the proceedings, barely moving. Occasionally he whispered something to his solicitor.

A few facts new to me emerged.

The police had had to arrest three people on suspicion of murder: Michael Barrymore, his then lover Jonathan Kenney, and Harlow man Justin Merritt. Barrymore was living with famous impresario and Everton Chairman Bill Kenwright, while the other two lived in Essex and Lancashire. They had to do this at the same time to avoid any possibility of collusion.

A Detective Constable, Carol Jenkins, had been designated to arrest Barrymore. She had been briefed by the Senior Investigating Officer in the case, Detective Chief Superintendent Gareth Wilson.

She was unable to do so because she had been stuck in traffic and had then gone to the wrong address.

A surveillance team was watching the place where Barrymore was temporarily staying - with Bill Kenwright. They moved to arrest him and bundled him into a van. The surveillance team member who arrested Barrymore and cautioned him etc. did not have sufficient knowledge of the precise grounds on which Barrymore was being detained. Essex Police had admitted to this and this was said to be sufficient to prove the ‘tort’ (civil wrong) of ‘false imprisonment’.

It was argued very persuasively by Essex Police’s barrister, Lord Edward Faulks QC, that he would have been arrested anyway if the right person had been there.

Therefore - it was suggested - Barrymore had actually suffered no damage at all.
At an earlier hearing in the High Court before Mr Justice Stewart-Smith, he had found the following very important facts:

1   Essex Police had lawful grounds for arresting Michael Barrymore on suspicion of committing the act of murdering Stuart Lubbock by means of anal rape…

2   ...because he and two other men (Kenney and Merritt) were the only three men that night who had the ‘window of opportunity’ to do so

3   There was evidence that the anal rape had been committed by ‘a blunt instrument’ which had never been found, and

4   There was sufficient evidence that the anal rape was the cause or a major cause of his death.

However, despite that, Mr Justice Stewart-Smith had held that Michael Barrymore was entitled to more than nominal damages because Essex Police were ‘wrong’ to have arrested him by an officer who had not had the opportunity to be properly briefed. He therefore said that Barrymore should be awarded substantial damages and decreed that there should be a further hearing to assess these ‘substantial’ damages’.

Essex Police appealed to the Court of Appeal against the finding that he had suffered ‘substantial’ damage, arguing that he had suffered no damage at all by being arrested by an improperly-briefed officer - because he would have been lawfully arrested anyway. He should therefore only receive nominal damages.

Essex Police were initially refused leave to appeal but appealed against that decision and were eventually granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

======

During legal submissions, great emphasis was laid on the decision in the case of Lumba vs. Secretary of State for the Home Department. I will reproduce a summary of the decision here:

Lumba v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (2011) UKSC 12.

The Supreme Court considered the legality of detaining foreign nationals who had completed prison sentences for criminal offences, pending their deportation. It was concluded that their detention was unlawful: the policy under which they had been detained had not been published and was inconsistent with published policy. The tort of false imprisonment was satisfied: the appellants had been detained, and their detention had not rested on a lawful decision. However, the appellants could have been detained lawfully for this period under the published policy, and, in consequence, were entitled to only nominal damages. Lord Phillips, Lord Brown and Lord Rodger dissented in part, contending that the tort of false imprisonment was not made out where it was shown that a reasonable decision-maker, applying a lawful policy, would have detained the appellants.

This was a Supreme Court decision with a full complement of NINE Supreme Court judges. They decided for the Home Office and against Mr Lumba on a 6 to 3 majority, showing how fine the line can be between one judge’s evaluation of the law on a series of facts, and another judge’s. The minority of three judges would also have decided the case in favour of the Home Office, but on different grounds. i.e. the minority did not think that the ‘tort’ of false imprisonment had been made out at all. Lord Leveson observed that the Law Lords had been ‘all over the place’ in their decision.

I did not stay long enough to hear all the submissions, but Essex Police’s submission was much more persuasive than that of Hugh Tomlinson Q.C.’s for Michael Barrymore.

I don’t know if the case went on to a second day.

I don’t know the result. I will keep in touch with the Essex Police Force Solicitor who will tell me the result.

There were no reporting restrictions.

======

Essex Police’s barrister opened the case with this statement:

“Stuart Lubbock’s body was found in a swimming pool”.

As CMOMM members here will know, my researches on the case show that Stuart Lubbock was never in the swimming pool that night. I have suggested, with evidence, that it is likely that Stuart was raped to death about an hour or more before the Ambulance Service was called, that a hoax drowning was then enacted, with Stuart’s body placed in swimming shorts by the pool, then some buckets of water thrown over him and water forced down his throat to fake a drowning.

Only then was the ambulance called.

Essex Police were severely criticised by the Independent Police Complaints Commission for failing to secure the crime scene and allowing Michael Barrymore’s Manager, Mike Brown, to look after the crime scene and also take the all-important temperature of the swimming pool in which it is alleged (I say falsely) that that Stuart was swimming in that night.

I am satisfied that multiple lies were told by all the 8 witnesses at that so-called ‘party’ and that all have therefore participated to a greater or lesser extent in the cover-up of a wicked killing of an innocent man. I am totally satisfied that, if not directly involved in Stuart’s killing, Barrymore knows exactly what happened to him, and therefore I view with utter contempt his attempt to extract £2.5 million compensation from the taxpayer and his wasting of police time and resources with this pathetic application.

.

by **Tony Bennett** 12.12.18 14:31

BREAKING RIGHT NOW...

Essex Police WIN appeal against Michael Barrymore.

Barrymore only to get 'nominal' damages. So NOT the £2.5 million he claimed!

He will have to pay his own legal costs.

So he has lost bigtime!

Some good news at last for Terry Lubbock.

And the issue of what REALLY happened to Stuart Lubbock on 1 April 2001 is yet to be determined.

One day...

by **Tony Bennett** 12.12.18 15:17

Tony Bennett wrote:BREAKING RIGHT NOW...

Essex Police WIN appeal against Michael Barrymore.

Barrymore only to get 'nominal' damages. So NOT the £2.5 million he claimed!

He will have to pay his own legal costs.

So he has lost bigtime!

Some good news at last for Terry Lubbock.

And the issue of what REALLY happened to Stuart Lubbock on 1 April 2001 is yet to be determined.

One day...

BBC report today here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-46539775

Michael Barrymore demands £2.5 million compensation for 'wrongful arrest' re Stuart Lubbock death - but Essex Police only offer £1 (Daily Mail & Daily Mirror, 21 Dec 2016) - Page 2 Lubboc10

Stuart Lubbock, murdered 1 April 2001

by Cmaryholmes 12.12.18 15:35

I

Tony Bennett wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:BREAKING RIGHT NOW...

Essex Police WIN appeal against Michael Barrymore.

Barrymore only to get 'nominal' damages. So NOT the £2.5 million he claimed!

He will have to pay his own legal costs.

So he has lost bigtime!

Some good news at last for Terry Lubbock.

And the issue of what REALLY happened to Stuart Lubbock on 1 April 2001 is yet to be determined.

One day...
BBC report today here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-46539775

Stuart Lubbock, murdered 1 April 2001

Great news! How dare Barrymore expect to benefit financially from this sorry saga!

by sar 12.12.18 16:04

Tony Bennett wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:BREAKING RIGHT NOW...

Essex Police WIN appeal against Michael Barrymore.

Barrymore only to get 'nominal' damages. So NOT the £2.5 million he claimed!

He will have to pay his own legal costs.

So he has lost bigtime!

Some good news at last for Terry Lubbock.

And the issue of what REALLY happened to Stuart Lubbock on 1 April 2001 is yet to be determined.

One day...
BBC report today here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-46539775

Stuart Lubbock, murdered 1 April 2001

Thank you Tony! Eternally grateful. You might say "A good day to bury bad news" I couldn't possibly say that.

by sar 12.12.18 16:14

Cmaryholmes wrote:I
Tony Bennett wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:BREAKING RIGHT NOW...

Essex Police WIN appeal against Michael Barrymore.

Barrymore only to get 'nominal' damages. So NOT the £2.5 million he claimed!

He will have to pay his own legal costs.

So he has lost bigtime!

Some good news at last for Terry Lubbock.

And the issue of what REALLY happened to Stuart Lubbock on 1 April 2001 is yet to be determined.

One day...
BBC report today here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-46539775

Stuart Lubbock, murdered 1 April 2001
Great news! How dare Barrymore expect to benefit financially from this sorry saga!

Maybe he will end up with £10 from Teddy Bass like Gal at the end of the film "Sexy Beast."

by **Jill Havern** 12.12.18 16:31

Seventeen bloody years Mr Lubbock has been trying to get justice for his murdered son. It's outrageous.

Well done Tony for helping Mr Lubbock fight this.

Not forgetting what you've done to help Mr Balkwell with his fight for justice for his murdered son too.

Get 'em Tony! thumbsup

by springer 12.12.18 17:19

Well done Tony. You have my utmost respect for your unstinting efforts to seek justice, whatever the cause.
I hope this brings some peace to Mr Lubbock.

by willowthewisp 12.12.18 19:32

Congratulations to Mr Tony Bennett for supporting the fight for justice for the "Lubbock" family.

by sar 12.12.18 19:45

willowthewisp wrote:Congratulations to Mr Tony Bennett for supporting the fight for justice for the "Lubbock" family.

+! willow

by plebgate 03.01.19 14:00

Bravo Tony, Bravo.

Never cease being a thorn in the side. Bravo.

by Doug D 01.07.19 17:31

Michael Barrymore drops police compensation claim

BBC News 2 hours ago

Michael Barrymore has dropped a compensation claim for being arrested over the death of a man at his home.
Barrymore was investigated following the death of Stuart Lubbock in his swimming pool 18 years ago. He sued Essex Police claiming the arrest had damaged his career.
Court of Appeal judges concluded the 67-year-old TV presenter would be entitled to only "nominal" damages.
Mr Lubbock's father Terry said: "That's brilliant news. I'm raising my arms."
Mr Lubbock, 74, added: "I am still determined to get justice for Stuart. He was only 31 when he died. I am determined to hang on to the end for him."

Stuart Lubbock's body was found in the pool in Roydon, Essex, in March 2001 after a party in which drugs and alcohol were taken.
A post-mortem examination revealed he had suffered sexual assault injuries.
In 2007 Barrymore was arrested in connection with the death, but was later released without charge, and withdrew from public life.
His arrest was found to be unlawful because the arresting officer did not have reasonable grounds to suspect Barrymore, a high court judge ruled.

No payment
He said it was "devastating" to his career and had valued his claim at more than £2.4m because of lost earnings.
Essex Police argued that he was entitled to only a "nominal" payout, and appeal judges ruled in the force's favour.
A spokeswoman said the claim had been discontinued by agreement and it had made no payment to the entertainer.

Barrymore - real name Michael Parker - and a lawyer who represented him were not available for comment.
In a statement Essex Police said: "At the heart of this case remains the fact that the family of Stuart Lubbock continue to live with the pain of the unanswered questions surrounding his death on March 31 2001.
"We continue to search for justice for Stuart's family and would ask anyone who has information about his death to call us or Crimestoppers anonymously. It is never too late to do the right thing."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-48829151

by **PeterMac** 01.07.19 17:35

by **PeterMac** 01.07.19 17:49

I suspect this has to do with the question of Court costs.
I believe I am right in saying that if they had decided to award less than the amount already offered, then he would have become liable for the entire amount.
As it is each side bears its own costs.

Also, it is sometimes said in papers other than the Police Oracle, from which the above is taken, that it was a question of the arresting officer's RANK.
That is totally wrong and a misunderstanding of the relevant law.
For an arrest to be lawful an officer must have reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed and reasonable grounds to suspect that person of having committed it.

An officer cannot be told to "bring someone in" without knowing the grounds for doing so.
In this case it appears that the Detective officer who was due to make the arrest was temporarily unable to do so, and another officer stepped in, made the arrest, but did not personally have sufficient information to make it lawful at that exact moment.

It may seem a small point, but it is at the root of having a 'civilian' police force.

As a Sergeant I made a couple of murder arrests, 'early doors', for the CID, but on each occasion was fully briefed about the evidence so this question never arose. The prosecution file simply picked up the story when the interview was started later that morning.

by **Tony Bennett** 01.07.19 17:56

At an absolute minimum, Michael Barrymore knows EXACTLY what happened to Stuart Lubbock that night of 1 April 2001.

The Coroner at the Inquest in September 2002 said that all the Pathologists agreed that Stuart had suffered a severe, violent attack that night, but that NONE of the witnesses could explain howand when it had happened. All eight witnesses to his death were lying.

The claim that Stuart Lubbock was in Barrymore's swimming pool that night was a hoax, perpetrated by Barrymore and his homosexual friends that night and by Barrymore's Manager, Mike Brown, who was summoned to attend and help with the cover-up when it was clear that Stuart was dead.

They laid him out by the swimming pool in a pair of swimming shorts, poured some buckets of water over his dead body and stuffed some water down his throat to fake a drowning. The lied about the swimming pool having been opened that night; it had been covered over for the entire winter. This was a cold winter night, with the air temperature no more than 41degF (5degC).

Two years ago Barrymore had the sheer effrontery to launch a claim for £2.5 million compensation on the simple ground that he was arrested on suspicion of murder by a detective one rank lower than that specified in he regulations. That was because the police had to arrest two other suspects at the same time.

Last month Piers Morgan interviewed Barrymore for his 'Life Story' series and there was an interview with him on Good Morning Britain. During those programmes Piers Morgan and Barrymore falsely claimed that Barrymore had been 'cleared' by the Inquest.

The fight goes on

by **Tony Bennett** 01.07.19 18:16

PeterMac wrote:Also, it is sometimes said in papers other than the Police Oracle, from which the above is taken, that it was a question of the arresting officer's RANK.

That is totally wrong and a misunderstanding of the relevant law.

For an arrest to be lawful an officer must have reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed and reasonable grounds to suspect that person of having committed it.

An officer cannot be told to "bring someone in" without knowing the grounds for doing so.

In this case it appears that the Detective officer who was due to make the arrest was temporarily unable to do so, and another officer stepped in, made the arrest, but did not personally have sufficient information to make it lawful at that exact moment.

It may seem a small point, but it is at the root of having a 'civilian' police force.

Petermac has stated the law accurately and this is indeed what happened.

In effect he has corrected what I have just written i.e. I said that the claim was based on the detective being of one rank below that approved by the regulations. That is how it was reported.

The argument in court by Barrymore's team was that the detective didn't know enough about the grounds for arresting him. Essex Police admitted he didn't know as much as the detectives working on the case but did know enough. On that factual point, Barrymore won. But on appeal, a panel of judges decided that although Barrymore was entitled to damages, it could only be 'nominal' damages as the police breach of procedure was more 'technical' than 'substantial'.

It remains a mystery why the case wasn't thrown out at the first hurdle - because there is a normally a strict time limit for bringing such cases. Barrymore was arrested in June 2007. He didn't bring his action in the High Court until late 2016 - over NINE years later

by **PeterMac** 16.01.20 9:58

https://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/18159884.new-michael-barrymore-documentary-set-explore-unsolved-swimming-pool-death/

A 90-minute documentary programme exploring the death of a man found in the swimming pool at entertainer Michael Barrymore’s house is set to broadcast this year.
The high-profile unexplained death of 31-year-old Stuart Lubbock back in 2001 will be told by the people closest to the Essex case.
Barrymore was one of the best-known TV presenters in the UK when the body of Mr Lubbock was found at his then home in Roydon, after a party.
Lubbock had been pronounced dead at the Princess Alexandra Hospital at 8.20 am the morning after the incident.
The Channel 4 programme, which has the working title Unexplained, has been 18 months in the making and features never-before-seen material from inside the unsolved Essex Police case.

by **PeterMac** 02.02.20 6:20

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7956927/Michael-Barrymore-pool-death-MURDER-says-detective.html

Michael Barrymore pool death 'was MURDER': Detective leading new probe says Stuart Lubbock was 'raped and deliberately killed' at TV star's £2m home 18 years ago

by **PeterMac** 02.02.20 8:01

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/barrymore-documentary-finally-can-see-light-end-tunnel-stuarts/

by **Tony Bennett** 02.02.20 9:39

Over a year ago, a film company came to see me and spent the day here discussing my theory on the murder of Stuart Lubbock at Michael Barrymore's house. They said they were making a film for Channel 4. So I guess this is it.

As most on here know, my book on the case: 'NOT AWIGHT: Getting Away With Murder', shows that Stuart Lubbock was never in that swimming pool. That was a cunning hoax, which sadly has stuck in the public mind - due to a combination of police corruption and the power of the mass mainstream media.

I gave them two boxes of files, police witness statements, all the pathology reports, full details of how I worked out my theory, a stack of newspaper cuttings, everything.

The producer, Avigail, promised to get back to me from time to time to let me know how they were proceeding.

She hasn't.

If the documentary gives a fair wind to my theory, and supports it, I shall be delighted.

If it leads to a successful prosecution of those responsible for murdering Stuart Lubbock, I shall be still more delighted.

-----

In the meantime, if anyone hasn't got the book and would like it, you can still get copies from me.

Unfortunately, an original member of The Lubbock Trust, Harry Cichy, stole most of my books when it was published and has been selling them on Amazon at an inflated price ever since. In a word, he turned out to be a snake.

So I have just put up this message on Twitter:

Read my book on #StuartLubbock's murder: NOT AWIGHT, where I show that Stuart Lubbock was never in the pool.

I have copies for sale, £10 inc. postage, email me: ajsbennett@btinternet.com

Don't buy them at high Amazon prices, where #HarryCichy sells them without my permission

by Doug D 02.02.20 12:19

The full Telegraph article below as it’s mainly hidden behind a membership/paywall thing:

Barrymore documentary: ‘Finally, I can see the light at the end of the tunnel for Stuart’s killer’

Nineteen years after 31-year-old Stuart Lubbock was found in entertainer Michael Barrymore's pool, his father Terry is still seeking justice

By Benji Wilson 1 February 2020 • 5:00pm

On Thursday, Channel 4 will screen a new documentary called Barrymore: The Body in the Pool, and from the title alone most people in Britain over the age of 30 will know exactly what it’s about. That title, however, is also telling: while people remember Michael Barrymore, the fallen TV entertainer, the man who was found dead in his swimming pool 19 years ago has remained largely anonymous.

Stuart Lubbock was 31 when he met Barrymore and his entourage at a Harlow nightclub on 31 March, 2001. They got chatting and Lubbock, a divorced factory supervisor and father of two, ended up going back to Barrymore’s house in Roydon for an after-party. Three hours later, a 999 call from one of the guests said that a man had drowned in the swimming pool. The body in the pool was Lubbock’s.

As soon as the news broke, a tabloid feeding-frenzy began. Barrymore was the quarry. Questions abounded: had he hosted a drug-fuelled gay orgy? (Barrymore had come out six years previously). Why did he flee his home? Would his gilded TV career ever recover?

For Stuart’s dad Terry, however, only one question mattered: what had happened to his son? Nineteen years on, he feels he is closer than ever to a definitive answer.

“Stuart was killed,” says Lubbock, who divorced Dorothy Hand, his son's mother, in 1984. “There have been glimmers of hope since then, but only with this documentary can I finally see the light at the end of the tunnel.”
To date, there have been five separate police investigations into what happened on that night in 2001, but only now is one of the most infamous unexplained cases of recent times potentially on the verge of being resolved. Last year, Essex police appointed a new Senior Investigating Officer, DCI Stephen Jennings, an expert in serious crime, to lead a new team examining the case. They have met with, and continue to meet with, Terry Lubbock.

If the new investigation does lead to a conviction, it will be the culmination of Lubbock’s unwavering fight for justice for his son. It began when Jonathan Kenney, Barrymore’s then partner, and Justin Merritt, a former dustman, who were both at the party, were arrested in 2001 on suspicion of rape and murder (all were released without charge). It continued at the inquest the following year, when forensic pathologists gave evidence – and Terry Lubbock fainted from the stress of it all.
Trying to find out who killed his son has taken a long-term toll on Lubbock. “I’ve had four strokes. That’s why I’m in here,” he says, waving at the overheated surrounds of the Harlow care home to which he is now confined. “I have to pee in a bag. I’ve got prostate cancer.

“This country, you’ve always depended on justice, but I’ve never had justice. I’ve still not got justice. My life’s gone, it’s gone. My life ended when I came here. I’m not putting this place down, because they’ve looked after me, but I’d never ever be here without all this trouble. I can’t blame Barrymore 100 per cent for me being here. I blame the justice system of this country, because it’s taken nearly 19 years for me to start, hopefully, to see some justice.”

In conversation, Lubbock, now 74, is erratic. He veers off on tangents and sometimes loses the thread completely. One moment, he will blame the police or some opaque establishment cover-up for the initial mistakes made (the crime scene, for example, was never protected); the next, Lubbock will concede that, more recently, the police have been “on the right track”.
“Thing is, my mind doesn’t work as good as it used to,” he says, swamped by an armchair-wearing sports shorts and a cardigan with a catheter running down to a cloudy amber bag below his shin. He is a sweet-natured but withered figure – until, that is, you hear him talk. Then, in a fierce, reedy alto, he feeds off many years’ frustration: “It was murder. My son had been so seriously raped that he died.”
The documentary supports his conclusions. In 2002, an inquest reached an open verdict on Stuart Lubbock’s death – yet in the new film all four pathologists who examined the body are interviewed on camera, and they all agree that Stuart was the victim of a serious sexual assault that happened just before he died. The film chooses to omit the pathologists’ pictures of Lubbock’s injuries. “It’s too horrific,” says producer Owen Phillips. “But if you see those pictures, there’s no doubt in my mind he was assaulted.”
Other myths are also laid to rest, not least that drowning was not the cause of death. Sue Homan, Stuart Lubbock’s ex-wife, is interviewed for the first time, and she confirms that Stuart was not gay, as newspapers had said at the time.
With these new developments, the years they have taken to come to light and the downturn in his health, you might expect Terry Lubbock to be angry. Yet in person, he is sanguine and chipper, as much sustained by the fight as he is ground down by its duration: “No anger, never ever. That is the kind of person I am.”

However, he carries a strong parental guilt about what happened to his son: “I don’t think Stuart had a very good life. I think I could have helped him a little bit more, but I didn’t, and then it all went pear-shaped for him with the Barrymore thing. But I’m trying to make up for it now.”
A large part of the film looks at how Barrymore’s celebrity status stole the light from the various investigations. A tabloid circus followed the case from the moment Stuart's body was discovered. Yet the Lubbock family, their grief and their confusion, were always mere adjuncts to the main headline.
In 2006, for example, Channel 4 paid Barrymore a reported £150,000 to return from self-imposed exile in New Zealand to take part in Celebrity Big Brother. He came second and spied a career revival. Back in the 1990s, before reality TV hits such as The X Factor took over Saturday night TV schedules, Barrymore had been the “clown prince of primetime”, fronting game shows such as Strike It Lucky, which regularly attracted audiences of 17 million viewers.
But that career revival never came: instead, he was spotted working as an odd-job man in an Essex garage and in a garden centre shifting sacks of compost. Barrymore had been scheduled to return to screens last month in ITV’s Dancing on Ice, but withdrew after apparently suffering an injury during rehearsals.

Lubbock hopes that this flicker of interest in Barrymore can now be used to turn a spotlight back onto his son.
“People have always been a bit iffy about this case,” he says. “When they see the name ‘Barrymore’, they’re going to turn their heads: they’ve got to watch this documentary – but it’s not going to be all about [him].
“They’ll come for Barrymore,” he says, “but stay for Stuart.”

Barrymore: The Body in the Pool is on Channel 4 on Thursday, 9pm

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/barrymore-documentary-finally-can-see-light-end-tunnel-stuarts/

by **PeterMac** 10.07.20 16:50

Michael Barrymore demands £2.5 million compensation for 'wrongful arrest' re Stuart Lubbock death - but Essex Police only offer £1 (Daily Mail & Daily Mirror, 21 Dec 2016)