Father of Barrymore pool death man awarded compensation
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority has awarded Terry Lubbock £6,800 criminal injuries compensation.
His 31-year-old son Stuart Lubbock was found dead in entertainer Michael Barrymore’s swimming pool after a house party in March 2001.
Three months later Barrymore and two other men were arrested and bailed in connection with the incident.
But a year after Mr Lubbock’s death, police decided no charges were to be brought against Barrymore or the other men.
Mr Lubbock Snr said today he would use the CICA award to “get justice for my son.”
Mr Barrymore was arrested again in June this year after audio recordings he made in preparation for a possible biography were seized by police from the home of agent Tony Cowell.
In the conversations with Mr Cowell, Barrymore discussed the events of the night Mr Lubbock died.
However, it was decided in September that no charges would be brought against him.
Last year Mr Lubbock accused the TV entertainer of a PR stunt to revive his celebrity status, saying he felt exploited after meeting the star and allegedly forgiving him over his son’s death.
He told the Daily Mirror he had only met Mr Barrymore to get answers about the incident but feels he was the object of a charm offensive.
The grief-stricken father says he felt like he was being dissuaded from pursuing a private prosecution against Mr Barrymore. He claims his son was raped before he died.
More from PinkNews
Mr Lubbock has previously said:
“There were at least eight people present on the night he died and somebody knows why he died and what happened to him.
“All I want to know is the truth about what happened to my son and why he died and I would urge someone to have the courage to come forward and tell the truth.”
The CICA is a government body that makes payments to the victims of violent crime.
“To make a payment under the scheme, we must be satisfied that, on the balance of probability, a crime of violence has taken place,” a spokesman told PA.
“This is a lower burden of proof than that required by a criminal court, which would need to prove the guilt of a defendant beyond all reasonable doubt to secure a conviction.”