Stardust families 'appalled and anxious' at potential unlawful killing verdict exclusion

Martina Hand, Antoinette Keegan and Pauline Braymer holding photos of Stardust victims Martina and Mary Keegan with Stardust supporters and families at the Coroners Court inquest on Wednesday into the Stardust tragedy. Picture: Gareth Chaney/ Collins

Families of the Stardust fire victims are “appalled and extremely anxious” at the possibility for proceedings to be delayed, as a coroner heard submissions on the potential for a verdict of unlawful killing to be excluded from the upcoming inquests.

Coroner Dr Myra Cullinane was hearing these submissions after counsel for Eamon Butterly — the man who ran the Stardust club in north Dublin where on the fire occurred in February 1981 — sought a ruling to preclude the possible verdict of unlawful killing in the case of the 48 people who died in the tragedy.

This was contested by legal representatives of the families of the victims at the latest pre-inquest hearing at Dublin’s RDS on Wednesday.

The fresh inquests into the Stardust fire were first ordered by the Attorney General in September 2019, and have yet to get fully under way. A number of issues have plagued the process, and one of these was finally resolved on Wednesday with the confirmation that a new venue had been found.

The contract of the RDS expires later this month, and the Pillar Room at the Rotunda Hospital in Dublin will play host to the inquests from March.

At the outset of Wednesday’s hearing, Dr Cullinane stated she wanted each party to outline their response to three questions.

They were:

• Does a coroner have the power to rule out a potential verdict prior to the hearing of evidence at an inquest?
• If there is the power to do so, in what circumstances should a coroner make such a ruling?
• And if there is the power to do so, is there a basis for ruling out a verdict of unlawful killing at the pre-inquest stage?

Much of the legal argument focused on Sections 30 and 31 of the Coroner’s Act, 1962.

These sections state that the focus of an inquest should be confined to ascertaining the how, when and where a person died. 

“Questions of civil or criminal liability shall not be considered or investigated at an inquest,” the law states. The next section states that the verdict of an inquest shall not contain a “censure or exoneration of any person”.

Mr O’Higgins SC, for Mr Butterly, cited a submission made by Phoenix Law on December 10 last regarding the process of the inquests and said this “undoubtedly raise[d] concerns as to the constitutionality of the procedure”.

“What is clear and unambiguous in relation to the Coroner’s Act, it is absolutely prohibited to consider or investigate issues of civil or criminal liability or to blame[or] exonerate,” he said, adding it arose both expressly and by implication.

On the question of whether a coroner can rule out a potential ruling at this stage, Mr O’Higgins said this was the case.

Speaking for Mr Butterly, he said unless there was a ruling as to what definitely can’t come in as part of a verdict then “I have a real difficulty”, and that he couldn’t go through the inquest process “uncertain as to what’s on my plate”.

He added a verdict of unlawful killing “is not wholly abstract in that it points towards a person or group of persons”.

Sean Guerin SC, representing the majority of families, said the scope of the inquests had originally been agreed upon by all represented parties at the inquests. The coroner outlined what the scope of these inquests would be in August 2021.

Mr Guerin said there was no question of his team asking for a ruling at this stage and no suggestion that a person should bear a civil or criminal liability.

He said their submission of December 10 had been “misunderstood and mischaracterised”.

Mr Guerin said the “greatest misunderstanding” was one of “perspective”.

“These inquests are not about Mr Butterly,” he said. “The verdicts won’t be either… the inquests are about the victims and how they died.” 

Desmond Fahy QC, also for the families, said the families he represents were now concerned at the potential delay to proceedings arising from these matters “at the 11th hour”.

“There is no proper reason why we can’t get to those inquests that the families have been waiting for for so long,” he said.

Dr Cullinane informed the parties at the close of the hearing she would make a judgment in this regard in the coming days, potentially before the end of this week.

The next pre-inquest hearing is set to take place in March.