Judge calls Michael Barrymore evidence 'double double hearsay'

Some of the evidence used by police to arrest TV star Michael Barrymore for rape and murder over the death of Stuart Lubbock has been branded "double double hearsay" by a High Court Judge.

Mr Barrymore is suing Essex Police for compensation after he was unlawfully arrested and detained in 2007, six years after Mr Lubbock was found unconscious in the TV star's pool following a house party.

The force agrees the arrest was unlawful on a technicality, admitting that a procedural error meant the arresting officer sent to detain the comedian was not given enough grounds for suspicion as he had not been a part of the investigation.

However, it is arguing in court that the case against Barrymore in connection with the death was strong enough for an arrest.

The force only wants to pay 'nominal damages' of £1 instead of 'substantial damages' that could amount to £2.5m.

Mr Lubbock died at Mr Barrymore's home in March 2001. He was found to have Class A drugs in his system and had severe injuries consistent with sexual assault.

In court, Mr Barrymore's QC Hugh Tomlinson criticised all eight pieces of new evidence the police had gathered on Mr Barrymore to make the arrest in 2007.

He said: "The key question is what material evidence available to police turned [Mr Barrymore] from a witness to a suspect."

For example, he continued: "Look at the statement from the cousin of Mr Barrymore's partner that Barrymore had told someone that a hairbrush had been used on Mr Lubbock prior to his death."

Mr Tomlinson argued that that piece of information should never have formed basis for an arrest.

At that point, High Court Judge Mr Justice Stuart-Smith offered his own criticism of that particular piece of evidence, describing it as "double double hearsay".

Mr Barrymore's QC also questioned the police officer in charge of the investigation at the time of the arrest.

Mr Tomlinson accused the officer of being "fixated" with rape and murder as the cause of the death and injuries, without fully looking into the possibility that it could have been an accident, perhaps involving Mr Lubbock tripping and landing on his backside on the edge of the pool.

Gareth Wilson responded by saying: "No, I truly believe I had grounds for the arrest."

The hearing continues.