Stardust inquest: 'Calling those children arsonists was the worst thing they ever did to us'

New inquests into deaths of 48 young people in Artane nightclub in 1981 got under way this week

Lorraine, Suzanne, and Antonette Keegan: Lost relatives Mary and Martina Keegan in the Stardust fire. They are pictured at the Coroner's Court inquest into the Stardust tragedy this week. Picture: Gareth Chaney

The new Stardust inquests began on Wednesday this week in Dublin District Coroner’s Court — an investigation into the cause of death of each of the 48 young people, an investigation into what caused the fire, and the actions of the State thereafter.

Coroner Dr Myra Cullinane told those present she would not be bound by the findings of previous inquiries into the tragedy, still the largest fire disaster in the history of the State.

The previous inquiries she referred to are an open wound for the survivors and families of those who perished. The first of those inquiries is considered the greatest insult to all those who suffered and became entangled with what Darragh Mackin, a solicitor representing the majority of families, told the court became a “State-sponsored effort to cover up” what happened in the popular nightclub in Artane, north Dublin, on Valentine's Day 1981.

Relatives of those killed and injured in the Stardust fire in north Dublin 40 years ago have spoken of their hope that a new inquest can answer their questions about how and why the tragedy happened.

Of the 841 patrons in the nightclub that night, 274 were under 18. They filled the dance hall and bar quickly after the doors opened. As a disco dancing competition got under way, a fire smouldered in the building which would quickly rip through it, taking the lives of 48 young people, and beginning a 40-year quest for justice.

The video footage of then-taoiseach and TD for the area Charlie Haughey walking through the smouldering remains of the nightclub early the next morning is now seen as prophetic. Mr Haughey wandered through what was essentially still a scene of investigation with a camera crew promising he would get to the bottom of the issue. It's a move that has since been slammed by fire experts who say evidence would have been compromised by the photo op.

Just one day after the fire, the government announced a public probe into the disaster, presided over by High Court judge Ronan Keane.

From early on, concerns were raised that the tribunal would not be in-depth enough.

 President Mary Robinson, then a senator, noted that the tribunal would not have the power to investigate the alleged failure of the Department of the Environment to implement several recommendations on fire prevention and why they were not carried out on the building.

The tribunal would investigate the cause of the fire, the circumstances of loss of life and injury, measures taken to prevent fire in the Stardust, and means of emergency escape, as well as the adequacy of legislation relevant to fire prevention.

The scene following the Valentine's Day fire in the Stardust nightclub in Artane in 1981.

The first sitting was held on March 2, just two weeks after the fire, and ran until November 26 the same year, sitting for 122 days.

There were 363 witnesses, 160 of whom had been inside the Stardust the night of the fire, and over 3.5m words were given in evidence.

The owner of the building, Eamon Butterly, attended the tribunal often and in one instance had Christine Keegan, who lost two of her daughters, moved to another side of the room because she whispered accusations in his ear.

Christine told authors Tony McCullagh and Noel Fetherstonhaugh at the time that "the lies" were what caused the most pain, and families often cried openly in the room.

Justice Keane's 633-page report was published in June 1982. Details from the tribunal report had been leaked to the media before the families had seen it.

Mr Butterly was criticised strongly for his policy of keeping fire exits chained or locked, as was Dublin Corporation and the Department of the Environment, which, the report said, was also to blame for the disaster.

During Garda investigations, evidence from survivors, staff, doormen, and Mr Butterly was conflicted.

Mr Butterly claimed all exits had been unlocked, which his own staff disputed. One doorman who lost his girlfriend in the fire, initially said he had unlocked all the fire exits, and later admitted he had lied. The head doorman, Mr Butterly's uncle, also provided conflicting evidence that he had unlocked the exits.

The Stardust venue in Dublin.

For his own part, Mr Butterly's evidence was found to be "seriously misleading", and the tribunal was "compelled to treat his evidence with great reserve".

The doormen and the owner's conduct was found to be "deplorable and indefensible".

The report found two exits had been locked, the remaining exits had chains draped across them to give the impression they were locked, two more exits were obstructed by skips or rubbish, and one more was obstructed by a van. 

When it was found young people had been passing alcohol through toilet windows, management had them sealed shut with steel sheets, making it impossible for people to escape from them when the fire edged closer.

The most emotive and now discredited part of Justice Keane's report was the conclusion the fire was "probably" started deliberately. A finding that the mothers of the Stardust victims say labelled their dead children arsonists.

"It may be, and this may be no more than conjecture, that the object of the arsonists was to do no more than cause a fire in the alcove itself, for whatever motives... and that they had not meant to cause injury or death," the report stated.

Relatives of those killed and injured in the Stardust fire in north Dublin 40 years ago have spoken of their hope that the new inquest can answer their questions about how and why the tragedy happened. Picture: Karen Morgan

Phyllis McHugh, who lost her only daughter Caroline in the fire, said on Wednesday: "What they did, calling those children arsonists, that was the worst thing they ever did to us."

The conclusion of this tribunal only spelt good news for one person, Mr Butterly, who was able to sue Dublin Corporation for damages.