By Gavin Mackintosh-
Michael Barrymore has been awarded an unspecified amount of damages after claiming his wrongful arrest by police destroyed his career.
The 65-year-old was arrested in 2007 on suspicion of the rape and murder of 31 year old Stuart Lubbock in Essex. Lubbock’s body was found in a pool at Barrymore’s home, and evidence of injuries indicating a sexual assault had taking place was also found on his body.
Mr Justice Stuart-Smith ruled on Friday that Mr Barrymore should receive more than a nominal payout.
The judge gave no exact figures in his ruling which was made at a preliminary stage aimed at establishing whether the former entertainer will be granted an award of compensation for his arrest, which he says was unlawful.
Mr Justice Stuart-Smith appears to have contradicted himself when he said there was “information available to the police that could have provided an arresting officer with reasonable grounds for a lawful arrest” but that ”the one officer with sufficient information to carry it out was not there at the time the entertainer was arrested”. This judge was effectively saying that if the police officer who was most equipped with all the information that would provide reasonable grounds for Barrymore’s arrest were present, the arrest would have been lawful.
.
This position by a judge seems very irrational because it should matter little who executed the arrest. Once there are reasonable grounds for an arrest, any officer can conduct the arrest lawfully.
Barrymore’s lawyer, Hugh Tomlison QC. argued that the fact Barrymore was never charged for the offence , and that the Crown Prosecution Service made it clear that there was no basis for any charges, proved that the arrest was unlawful. Lawyers are paid to defend the accused, but their actual reasoning can be mistaken. Reasonable grounds for suspicion does not have to rest on hard core evidence. Circumstantial evidence can sometimes raise suspicion in murder cases. The fact mr.Lubbock’s body was found in Barrymore’s private pool was enough reason to suspect Barrymore knew what occurred that fateful night, because anybody hosting a party would be expected to know what happened in their own home. It is sometimes necessary to arrest a suspect for the purposes of interrogation, whether or not sufficient evidence for a conviction is readily obvious. The relevant evidence may turn up during questioning. The fact Barrymore wasn’t charged does not invalidate the basis for his arrest.
Mr Barrymore has always maintained that mr. Lubbock’s injuries were not caused at his home and he did not know what happened. Barrymore’s denial places no obligation on the police to believe him, but his lawyer said his arrest was made without any ”evidential foundation”.
After the High Court hearing, Essex Police said in a statement:
Today’s ruling must not overshadow the questions which are still unanswered for Mr Lubbock’s family and friends.
“Sixteen years on they still need to know what happened to Stuart on that night, how he was injured, and who is responsible for his death.
“A small number of people know the answers to those questions, and over the years loyalties change and somebody may want to help us at this time.”