Terry Lubbock hands in to the Attorney-General a request for a fresh inquest into the killing of his son Stuart, 27 June 2017 - The PHOTOS - and A LETTER

THE PHOTOS >>>

TERRY LUBBOCK IN HIS ROOM AT THE ABBOT CARE HOME, HARLOW


TERRY LUBBOCK WITH HIS DOSSIER OF EVIDENCE - THE BASIS FOR SEEKING A FRESH INQUEST. THE FIRST INQUEST SAID THE CAUSE OF DEATH WAS 'UNASCERTAIINED', AND REACHED AN 'OPEN' VERDICT.  TERRY NOW SEEKS A HOMICIDE VERDICT, WITH THE CAUSE OF DEATH: "HOMICIDE - CAUSED BY A VIOLENT SEXUAL ASSAULT"


ITV NEWS PREPARE TO INTERVIEW TERRY


TERRY EXPLAINS WHY THERE MUST BE A NEW INQUEST

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

THE LETTER >>>


From: Anthony J S Bennett, M.A.                             
e-mail: ajsbennett@btintermet.com 
Tel:  07835 716537                                                    

Mr Jeremy Wright Q.C., M.P.                                          Monday, 26 June 2017
Attorney-General
5-8 The Sanctuary
LONDON
SW1P  3JS

For the attention of the Solicitor-General, Robert Buckland Q.C.

APPLICATION FOR FIAT FOR FRESH INQUEST:

DEATH OF STUART LUBBOCK, 31 March 2017


Dear Mr Wright

re: Request for Fresh Inquest into the killing of Stuart Lubbock, 31 March 2017 (Original Inquest heard by Essex Coroner, Mrs Caroline Beasley-Murray)

Section 13 Coroners Act 1988

I write on behalf of Terry Lubbock, the father of Stuart Lubbock, as his appointed representative in this matter. I previously represented him on a number of matters pertaining to the killing of his son msck in 2006 & 2007, as will be clear from my enclosed 60-page report. I am a retired Solicitor.

This application is made under Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988, in particular Section 13(1)(b).

I consider that all the following grounds are made out in the enclosures that come with this letter:

1 rejection of evidence

2 irregularity of proceedings

3 insufficiency of enquiry

4 the discovery of new facts or evidence, and

5 that it is necessary or desirable in the interests of justice that another inquest should held 

I also suggest that the right and proper course of action would be to quash the findings of the original inquest.  
I will deal with each of the above grounds in turn. 

So far as the rejection of evidence is concerned, it is submitted that, especially in the light of subsequent developments and in particular the recent revelations in the civil case of Michael Barrymore v Essex Police, the balance of the evidence in the case points unerringly to Stuart Lubbock having been killed as the result of an exceptionally violent sexual assault.

The post-mortem photographs graphically illustrate the severity of that assault. Apart from the opinion of the now-discredited former Home Office Pathologist Dr Michael Heath, the findings of the other three Pathologists are all consistent with a verdict of death caused by a violent sexual assault. However (see below), as I suggest in both my book on the case and in my report, their evidence was severely compromised by procedural failings in the Inquest which led to a failure to establish whether, as was claimed by some witnesses, Stuart Lubbock was ever in Michael Barrymore’s swimming pool the night he was killed. The claim that he had been in the pool that night, and was found there, naturally led all four Pathologists to consider a ‘drowning’ verdict. Of it had been established by the police and the Inquest that Stuart Lubbock was NOT in the swimming pool at all that night, the Pathologists’ verdicts would have been very different, as the attached report shows. 

So far as irregularity of proceedings and insufficiency of enquiry are concerned, you will find, within the enclosed material, details of how the Inquest was conducted by Mrs Beasley-Murray. Most regrettably, she took the evidence from the Pathologists right at the beginning of the Inquest, leaving the evidence of the witnesses who were at Michael Barrymore’s ‘party’ that night to the very end. That meant that the Pathologists had no chance to be appraised of what the witnesses were saying about the all-important question of whether  Stuart Lubbock was actually in the swimming pool at all that night. They were never at any stage made aware of the irreconcilable contradictions in their evidence and the inability of any one of them to give any explanation whatsoever to the Coroner as to how Stuart sustained serious sexual injuries at Michael Barrymore’s home that night. 

There were also irregularities in the way that Essex Police dealt with the evidence in the case. There were severely criticised in a report by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) in 2008. That is not enclosed, but may be accessed on the IPCC website. In addition, the Police were made aware in the very first few days after Stuart was killed of massive, wholesale and utterly irreconcilable contradictions between the account of how Stuart’s body was allegedly recovered from the swimming pool. I can see no evidence that the Lady Coroner in the case was furnished by Essex Police with a proper analysis of these contradictions, such as for example is set out in my book. The Lady Coroner herself, however, would have read the witness statements - and these glaring contradictions and changes of story in their evidence must have been evident to her, had she studied them in any depth.        

It is also apparent that Essex Police withheld the witness evidence from the Pathologists in the lead-up to a crucial meeting between the Pathologists in late 2001 (see, especially, my book). 

As for the new facts and evidence that have emerged since the Inquest in September 2002, please see my book and enclosed report.

I should add that neither Mr Lubbock nor I still hold proof of the decision by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) that Stuart Lubbock died from a crime of violence, but the CICA will be able to confirm that. 

Finally, as regards the interests of justice, the Coroner recorded an ‘Open’ verdict and said the cause of death was ‘unascertained’. This verdict cannot possibly do justice to a grieving father who has heard six witnesses, who were present with Stuart Lubbock that night, all offer no explanation whatsoever as to why he suffered what the four Pathologists and the Lady Coroner herself stated were ‘serious sexual injuries’. The witnesses clearly lied comprehensively about what really happened that night. The claims that Stuart had been in the pool that night and that the swimming pool cover had been retracted before his death were contradictory and were never properly challenged, either by the police, by the Lubbick family Solicitor Mr Gowen, or by the Lady Coroner.  

The law 

Insofar as I am able to assist you on the law, I draw your attention to the case of Her Majesty’s Attorney General v (1) Her Majesty’s Coroner of South Yorkshire (West) (2) Her Majesty’s Coroner of West Yorkshire (West) [2012] EWNC 3783 (Admin), the High Court. At Paragraph 10, the Court ruled that “If a different verdict is likely, then the interests of justice will make it necessary for a fresh inquest to be ordered”. 

In Paragraphs 18-20, the Court noted that that the original Hillsborough Inquest had been ‘seriously flawed’ because it had ‘proceeded on a flawed assumption’. That is exactly what we allege here. The entire Stuart Lubbock Inquest proceeded from the very first few minutes on the basis of what we say was an entirely flawed assumption - stated as a fact by Essex Police Officer P.C. Jones - that Stuart Lubbock had been swimming in the pool that night and had, allegedly, been ‘found in the pool’.  P.C. Jones therefore misled the entire Inquest from the outset.

The same case also raised the issue of whether Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (EHCR) (‘failure to consider an effective investigation’) applied in the Hillsborough case. It did. Equally, we say that Article 2 also applies to the Stuart Lubbock case. For the reasons set out in my book, in my report and in the IPCC report, we say that Essex Police’s investigation was highly ineffective. The principles governing the relevance of Article 2 were also set out in R v Inner West London Coroner ex parte Dallaglio and in R (Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] 1 AC 653.

The case of R (on the application of Markham) v HM Coroner for the Westen District of Greater London [2013] DWHC 253 (Admin) gave useful guidance on under what circumstances a new Inquest should be held on the basis of ‘new evidence’.

In the case of R (on the application of Sreedharan) v HM Coroner for the County of Greater Manchester and others [2013] EWCA Civ 181 The Court of Appeal, the question of the ‘aggressive questioning’ by the Coroner of a significant witness was discussed. The witness complained that he had been questioned ‘too aggressively’ by the Coroner. The Court, however, rejected that argument, holding that “A Coroner is duty bound to ensure as thorough an investigation of a [witness’s] conduct as possible and to follow where the evidence led”.

That is what we say did not happen in this Inquest.

The Lady Coroner failed in her task - her duty - of questioning the witnesses, who were manifestly lying about what had really happened the night Stuart Lubbock died. The Police also failed in their Section 2 ECHR duty to conduct  an effective investigation.

Please revert to me if you have any questions about this application or you require any further information.

I have not included a copy of the Inquest Transcript as Terry Lubbock cannot afford to pay for a copy. If one is needed by yourself, I trust that the Lady Coroner who conducted the original Inquest will be able to assist you.

I await hearing from you.

Yours sincerely
 

Anthony Bennett
for Terry Lubbock       
 
    

Fingers crossed.

Obvious failings from the onset for both Terry and his son, both of which deserve the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  
I commend you Tony and hope that Jeremy Wright QC has sense to do what is right in the name of law so that Terry can achieve some kind of peace and those who committed this act of violence and crime are served what's coming to them.

Yes fingers crossed Tony.    Carry on being who you are no  matter what is said against you.   Courage indeed.

Thanks for the kind comments and encouragement.

Here is the Attorney-General's initial response.

The three persons arrested in June 2007 on suspicion of murdering Stuart Lubbock - Michael Barrymore, his then drag queen lover Jonathan Kenney and Justin Merritt - will get the chance to have their views on whether or not there should be a fresh inquest.

I think it's fairly predictable what their response will be:



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

Rod Crockett

7 June, 2001

The collapse of Michael Barrymore’s lifestyle is akin to a Greek tragedy. But have we really reached the end or is their more heartache to come?

The media are already speculating on the next instalment, following his arrest for drugs after a man was found drowned in his swimming pool. This one could run and run - and it could be Barrymore doing the running.

Even when he was in hiding from the public eye recently in a luxury hotel in Dubai, onlookers claimed they saw him drink himself unconscious by another pool. Another straight guy staying at the hotel alleges Barrymore tried to chat him up. Will he ever learn? Does he want to?

Impermanency has been Barrymore’s constant life companion. Nearly everyone important to him is either estranged or dead. The comedian's curse is looming and beginning to mirror the comedian Tony Hancock's life and eventual suicide in Australia. He too found it easy to make others laugh, but couldn't find happiness himself. Is it the pressure to make others happy that blocks them from thinking of their own happiness enough? Or do they find it impossible to live out of the spotlight? Impossible to survive without constant attention.

Barrymore isn't the only troubled comedian. Caroline Aherne, who has had her own fair share of ups and downs, announced this week that she is leaving the limelight to live in anonymity in Australia. She is said to be greatly troubled by Barrymore's story and terrified she could find herself on the same slippery slope - down.

Barrymore’s self-destructive lifestyle has touched many. Unfortunately many, whose lives he has touched aren't in contact with him any more or they are people he doesn't even know - his adoring audience.

Barrymore was born in Bermondsey to an abusive and alcoholic father with a reputation for being a pub raconteur. Barrymore’s parents’ marriage collapsed while he was still a boy. When his father left he held a gun to Barrymore's head.

Barrymore, although possessing his father’s talents (as well as his addictive personality) went unrecognised until he married Cheryl, a dancer, in 1976. She took control and became his manager. Her father, Eddie Cocklin, became a surrogate parent to Barrymore after becaming his financial advisor. Barrymore was protected by people who could keep his demons at bay. The team propelled him into winning the talent show ‘New Faces’; and Cheryl gave him the stability to deal with the fame.

The audiences warmed to his open personality. Here was a man who didn’t put down Britain’s disenfranchised. Who clearly enjoyed the company of children and the elderly – and the public loved him for it.

Disaster struck, however, when Cheryl’s father died and Barrymore lost weight dramatically. He pulled out of a TV series claiming exhaustion. Next, in 1994 he declared on TV that he was an alcoholic and drug addict. Cheryl hired guards to keep him on the straight and narrow.

Then Barrymore dropped the bombshell that many thought would finish his career. He declared he was gay. He needed to embrace his sexuality in new ways and found himself the centre of a hedonistic gay world of drugs and clubbing.

The British public accepted his sexuality and took the 'out and proud' Barrymore to their hearts. He found love again with Shaun Davis, 26, and tied the knot in Hawaii in 1999. But Barrymore still didn't know when to stop. For him the party was never over. Eventually Shaun tired of picking up the pieces and left him.

Barrymore fell in with drag queen John Kenney, 31, who had been working the gay scene in Blackpool. Barrymore went into party overdrive again, only to be stopped dead one fateful drug fuelled night that took one young man's life.

This week Barrymore was driven ashen-faced in an unmarked police car to Harlow police station. Later, he was released on bail. If he is found guilty he could find himself behind bars for up to 14 years for drug possession.

Before the arrest, Barrymore had told a friend that he wanted to escape the limelight. His wish may be granted - but he could find himself eating porridge!

.

You know you have a friend when they are prepared to not only go that extra mile but are with you for the long haul come what may.

Tony Bennett is such a person.