Stardust manager denies there was 'some resistance' to making venue a safe place

Eamon Butterly told Dublin District Coroner’s Court 'we thought it was one of the safest places around'

Eamon Butterly at Dublin District Coroner’s Court. Picture: Gareth Chaney/ Collins Photos

The man who managed the Stardust nightclub in north Dublin has denied there was “some resistance” to making the venue a safe place, and said "we thought it was one of the safest places around”.

Eamon Butterly, whose family owned the complex that also included a pub and food factory, told the Dublin District Coroner’s Court that it would have been up to Dublin Corporation — now the City Council — to inform him the carpet tiles that were put on the walls should not be used.

The court also heard that Mr Butterly had been given a copy of the regulations for places of public resort, which advised on obligations such as the state of exits, but had not read them.

Tuesday marked Mr Butterly’s third day of evidence at the fresh Stardust inquests, for the 48 young people who died following the fire in the nightclub he was manager of in the early hours of February 14, 1981.

Last week, he claimed that all the doors were open in the Stardust on the night of the fire, despite the statements of patrons being put to him on how difficult they found it to escape the blaze.

In his evidence to the Keane Tribunal, set up by the Government to investigate the fire back in 1981, Mr Butterly had said he did not know about specific fire standards at the time, in particular the surface spread of flame rating. 

One of the conditions to the planning permission for the building stated that all internal wall and ceiling linings had to have a rating of class one.

Fire experts due to give evidence at a later date are expected to say the carpet tiles used in the Stardust played a role in the spread of the fire on the night, and were a class three or class four.

Mr Butterly said he was not aware of what these ratings were, but said that if Dublin Corporation had had any issues with a facet of the building, they would have said so.

He said a fire certificate was furnished along with the tiles to be used in the Stardust. 

“If it was a certificate they’d be happy with, they’d let things go,” he said, adding that if the corporation wasn’t happy they would have let him know.

Senior counsel Michael O’Higgins, representing some of the families of victims, put it to Mr Butterly that it was “baffling” that he wouldn’t ask what the ratings meant and suggested it was an “arrogant approach” that he wouldn’t bother asking an expert something which he “clearly knew nothing about”.

“Was it that you just couldn’t be bothered?” Mr O’Higgins asked, to which Mr Butterly replied no.

Mr Butterly also said it may not be acceptable “40-odd years later” and that he would “know more about it now”.

An account was also put to him from a garda who had frequented the Silver Swan pub, which adjoined the Stardust and was also owned by the Butterly family, who had noticed locks and chains on doors on dates in the summer of 1980. 

This garda said that he pointed out to staff on multiple occasions that exit doors should not be locked and it was not until after he said he would raise it when the pub’s licence was up for renewal that he noticed a change. 

Mr O'Higgins suggested that, in the absence of a coercive element, nothing would have changed. 

Mr Butterly said: “This is the first I’ve ever heard of it. I’d like to know who the garda spoke to. He should’ve gone to the manager.

“Somebody was reckless, whoever did that.” 

Mr Butterly’s evidence continues.