The press is only doing its job in trying to get witnesses to talk about Mr Barrymore's party
STEPHEN GLOVER Many people have been following the case of Michael Barrymore with some bewilderment. Who exactly is he? Several million of us haven't the faintest idea. We couldn't name a single programme on which he has appeared. Though I have watched my fair share of trash television, I don't believe I have ever seen him, though it is possible I have forgotten. Nonetheless, he evidently thinks a great deal of himself. The BBC was prepared to pay him half a million pounds for his memoirs, until forced to tear up the contract. His bosses at ITV evidently treasure him. The tabloids treat him as though he is a person of enormous importance. Stuart Lubbock, the young man who died at Mr Barrymore's house having been subjected to an appalling sexual assault, was, according to his father, drawn to the star 'like a moth to the flame'. So we must accept, I think, that although we don't know who Mr Barrymore is, and although he is probably a person of very little talent, if any, he is a star, and someone to whom some poor deluded people look up.
Last week Mr Barrymore appeared at the inquest of Mr Lubbock, who died at an impromptu party given at Mr Barrymore's house in the early hours of 31 March last year. Mr Lubbock sustained horrific injuries which a pathologist has said were caused by a serious gay assault. He was discovered lying in Mr Barrymore's swimming-pool. Neither Mr Barrymore nor anyone else has been able to throw any light on how Mr Lubbock came by his injuries. The police have certainly been unable to enlighten us. The two men had met earlier in the evening at the Millennium nightclub in Harlow, Essex, after Mr Barrymore had been to an Indian restaurant with some neighbours. They were joined by Justin Merritt, a dustman, and Mr Merritt's sister, Kylie, described as 'star-struck'. Along with others, they repaired to Mr Barrymore's house, where Stuart Lubbock died. The police later found traces of cocaine there.
When questioned at the inquest, Mr Barrymore used a coroner's court rule which protects witnesses from incriminating themselves. He refused to answer five questions about the cocaine. The tabloids were greatly exercised by Mr Barrymore's refusal to be frank, and they gave him a severe drubbing. His barrister, Michael Mansfield QC, subsequently criticised the press for its 'sensational' reporting. I am not quite sure what he meant by that. Certainly the newspapers did not spare their readers, and offered a detailed account of the inquest. But how was this sensational? I think that Mr Mansfield did not much like the criticisms of his client's refusal to answer those five questions. But, in fairness to Mr Mansfield, it is a well-tried tactic to heap blame on the newspapers since, without knowing very much, if anything, about the case, most of us are ready to believe that they have misbehaved. Once the idea takes root that the media have been unfair, Mr Barrymore can be represented as a victim who deserves our sympathy. Alas, Mr Mansfield's good work may be undone now that the police are investigating Mr Bartymore's alleged perjury at the inquest.
Mr Mansfield did not leave things there. On Radio Four's Today programme he declared that payment of witnesses by the media was 'getting out of hand' and 'tainting justice'. Here was a complaint calculated to win the support of all right-thinking people. An intelligent friend of mind, who knows nothing whatsoever about the Barrymore case, has spluttered and expostulated angrily about the scandal of witness payments. Clever Mr Mansfield. It is certainly true that a red-top tabloid has paid one of those present at the party a sum not unadjacent to /30,000 for his version of events. Stuart Lubbock's parents have also reportedly sold their story. But it is not at all clear to me how these accounts could have affected the outcome of the inquest. Neither Mr Barrymore nor anyone else has been accused of any crime, and there was no jury to be influenced by reading partial accounts in the press. Mr Mansfield's complaint is a glorious red herring. If Mr Barrymore believes that he has been traduced by any witness in any newspaper, he is perfectly free to sue.
What, in general, do we think of paying witnesses? It is actually surprisingly uncommon. It is also going to become more difficult. Lord Irvine, the Lord Chancellor, has threatened legislation unless the Press Complaints Commission tightens its own regulations. Newspapers will be forbidden to make payments to witnesses from the outset of criminal proceedings until the verdict is delivered, whereas at present the cut-off point comes when the witness has completed his evidence. This seems a sensible amendment. But it would have no effect in the case of Mr Barrymore, since no charges have been brought. In the circumstances, it is highly desirable that as many witnesses as possible step forward to cast light on how this young man died at Mr Barrymore's home. If money is required to loosen their tongues, I cannot see that payment would be reprehensible. The police have not got anywhere. Nothing is known. Those present at the party are able to remember surprisingly little about it. I doubt that payment to any of them is going to make any difference at this stage of the proceedings, but if it did help the police to work out how Stuart Lubbock died, which of us would be against it?
Last Sunday saw the first issue of Richard Desmond's Daily Star Sunday. My first impression, as an occasional peruser of the Daily Star, was that its new Sunday sister contains a noticeably small quotient of tit'n'bum. Why this should be so is not clear, but I am worried that readers of the daily version may feel short-changed. Perhaps these are mere teething troubles. Perhaps next Sunday's issue will contain the requisite amount of bare flesh. If not, the new paper may be in trouble. After all, this is a market in which the News of the World and the People, while inveighing from the pulpit against some sexual practices, are expert titillators. It would be a rum business if Mr Desmond, a pornographer by origin, did not triumph in an area which he should understand better than anybody.
If the tit'n'bum quotient is satisfactorily adjusted, will Daily Star Sunday prosper? It is very cheap — 35 pence, while the News of the World, the People and the Sunday Mirror each sell at 65 pence. This is because it employs very few journalists. One consequence of employing very few journalists is that you get very few good stories. Say what you like about the News of the World, it does regularly break stories, not all of them in the category of Tory MP caught in broom cupboard with tea lady, or soap star in sordid three-in-a-bed caper. I wonder whether the Daily Star Sunday will have any proper scoops. If it does not, it may have to fall back on mere tit'n'bum, and that, on a Sunday, might not be enough.
Previous page
