Barrymore may get £2.4m over party that left man dead
MIcHael Barrymore is in line for a bumper payout from essex Police after the High court yesterday backed his claim that the force destroyed his career.
The entertainer has demanded £2.4million in damages for the worldwide publicity generated when he was arrested for the rape and murder of a party-goer found dead in his swimming pool.
He complained he had been wrongly held in 2007. essex Police admitted the arrest was unlawful but argued that he should receive only nominal damages because an officer who had the right to detain him was en route.
However, Mr Justice Stuart- Smith ruled against the force, saying Barrymore, 65, was ‘entitled to recover more than nominal damages’.
another hearing will now take place to establish how much the TV presenter should receive.
The arrest took place six years after Stuart lubbock’s body was found at Barrymore’s mansion in Roydon, essex, following a drink and drug-fuelled party.
Mr lubbock’s father Terry, 72, said the ruling on a legal technicality was a ‘travesty of justice’. He added: ‘Barrymore brought suspicion on himself. He fled the scene before the police arrived and his assistant removed things from his house. even £1 would be more than he deserved.’
Yesterday’s ruling in london dealt only with the preliminary issue of the level of damages and essex Police has requested leave to appeal. If this fails, the sum will be set by the High court unless the parties settle outside court.
Mr lubbock, 31, was found to have injuries indicating a sexual assault after his death in 2001. Barrymore was inter- viewed by police shortly afterwards but no further action was taken. When he was arrested in 2007, the former Strike It lucky host was kept in a cell for 36 hours before the case was dropped three months later.
In 2002 an open verdict was recorded at an inquest after a pathologist said there was no ‘benign or accidental explanation’ for Mr lubbock’s injuries.
Barrymore brought the case to the High court for a five-day hearing in May under his real name, Michael Parker.
His barrister Hugh Tomlinson Qc said: ‘This arrest was made without any proper evidential foundation. However, the fact that it had happened, and the worldwide publicity it generated, destroyed the claimant’s career.’
The amount of time since Mr lubbock’s death meant an arrest was not needed for an effective investigation, he added. John Beggs Qc, for essex Police, said the arrest was ‘technically unlawful’ but a lawful arrest would have taken place shortly afterwards.
He added that the detective who had been meant to detain Barrymore had been held up in traffic.
Mr Justice Stuart-Smith ruled that the defendant – the chief constable of essex – ‘has failed to prove Mr Parker could and would have been arrested lawfully’.
essex Police said that the ‘ judgment must not overshadow the questions which are still unanswered for Mr lubbock’s family and friends’.