Stardust jury urged to return a verdict of unlawful killing
A JURY has been urged to return a verdict of unlawful killing in the case of the 48 people who lost their lives in the 1981 Stardust fire.
Yesterday, the closing speeches by legal representatives on behalf of the bereaved families began in the Dublin District Coroner’s Court after an almost year-long inquest.
Michael O’Higgins said that the credibility of Stardust nightclub manager Eamon Butterly had been ‘shredded beyond redemption’ during the inquest, while Des Fahy urged the jury to begin the process of giving dignity back to the victims who had died in ‘apocalyptic’ circumstances.
The inquest has now entered its final stages before coroner Dr Myra Cullinane and the jury.
Mr O’Higgins told the jury that they were entitled to bring in a verdict of unlawful killing so that the families can be satisfied that the basis on which their loved ones died is accurately recorded.
‘The question you are being asked isn’t who caused an unlawful killing. That is not the question you are asking,’ he said.
‘You are answering a different question: how did the deceased die? And your verdict doesn’t apportion liability or exonerate an individual, and this court has no business making a finding that blames somebody or exonerates somebody else,’ he added.
He said that evidence had been heard about exit doors being locked or ‘mock-locked’ in the Stardust, as it was claimed that people were getting in for free.
However, he said the inquest could not find one witness, including Eamon Butterly, who had ever seen someone getting in for free through the exit doors.
He also said that toilet windows were blocked up with steel sheets and bars, which almost turned the place ‘into a fortress’.
Turning to the matter of the planning permission for the club, Mr O’Higgins said that no architect had supervised the conversion of the building.
He said that there were fire safety regulations in place at the time, including such conditions that exit doors could be secured only by automatic fastenings, and if chains and padlocks were used, a keyboard had to be provided for the chains to be hung on.
Mr O’Higgins reminded the jury that Mr Butterly had said he knew nothing about these regulations, as he did not read the guidelines.
‘If you’re going to build and operate a premises such as this, if you don’t have the time and inclination to be a micromanager and have your hand on every single pulse, it’s not too much to ask you have some type of structure there that catches these things, but it didn’t happen,’ he said.
Concerning the locking of fire exits when patrons were on the premises, Mr O’Higgins reminded the jury that Mr Butterly had said that this practice was going on for two to three weeks before the fire, while he had said that the practice of ‘mock-locking’ the doors by draping chains over the panic bars had been in place as long as he could remember.
Mr O’Higgins said that Mr Butterly had initially been adamant that the locking of doors was all down to head doorman Tom Kennan on his own initiative, but he later said that the policy of keeping doors locked until 11.30pm on any given night was forced on him as people were getting in for free.
Mr O’Higgins said that Mr Butterly later gave evidence that the policy was a joint initiative between himself and the staff, although the witness could not say how much of the policy he was willing to own.
Mr Fahy referred to the evidence of the doormen, such as Francis Kenny, who told the inquest he had never been given a fire drill and was not told what to do in an emergency. Mr Fahy said that Mr Kenny had given evidence that the only thing he had been shown was how to loop a chain around the panic bar of a door to make it look locked.
‘What sort of upside-down world was this, where a new doorman was told how to trick teenagers into thinking an exit door was locked but was never taught how to get them out of a building safely if there was a fire?’ asked Mr Fahy.
The inquest continues today in the Rotunda Hospital.
‘Doorman told how to trick teenagers’