Unlawful killing verdict should not be open to Stardust inquest jury, court told

Former Stardust nightclub manager Eamon Butterly has claimed before the High Court that the coroner conducting new inquests into the fatal fire should instruct the jury that it is not open to them to return an unlawful killing verdict.

Paul O’Higgins SC, who was opening Mr Butterly’s challenge to the new inquests, said the jury should be told at the beginning that an investigation of unlawful killing “forms no part” of the process.

He said the coroner does not enjoy “unfettered discretion” in relation to this under the Coroners Acts and the Constitution.

Counsel said it was a fundamental requirement of any such investigation by the coroner that the jury is told as much as possible about the context of the deaths, but it must also be told an investigation of unlawful killing forms no part of it and it would be improper not to tell the jury that, he said.

Ten minutes with Jennifer Lopez: ‘How do I go where my heart is leading me without fear? I say tread forward’

---

Irish Olympian Jack Woolley: ‘We’ve sat in saunas and not drank water for two days’

---

Mark Moriarty: two 15-minute meals made easy, with a few simple tricks

---

The Dublin-New York Portal didn’t show us Manhattan, just our badly-behaved selves

---

Butterly argument

Mr Butterly’s lawyers say the “proposed targets of the claim of unlawful killing” put forward by lawyers for families of the deceased consisted of four named individuals and a company. Mr Butterly appeared to be the “only living natural person” among those, it is claimed.

It was argued that this meant Mr Butterly would be “clearly named for the killing by implication if he and other persons in this group were to be found guilty of unlawful killing in the course of these inquests”.

The court heard that Dublin District Coroner Myra Cullinane conducted pre-inquest hearings during which the question of whether a jury could reach a verdict of unlawful killing became an issue. She refused to rule out the question of such a verdict, it is claimed.

The establishment of a new inquest came after then attorney general Séamus Woulfe, in 2019, directed that they be held because there was an “insufficiency of inquiry as to how the deaths occurred, namely a failure to sufficiently consider those of the surrounding circumstances that concern the cause or causes of the fire”.

Mr Butterly and his family owned the nightclub in Artane, Dublin, when a fire broke out, leading to 48 deaths and 128 people being injured on the night of February 13th/14th, 1981.

‘Uncontroversial facts’

There were a number of inquiries over the years including inquests in 1982, which recorded deaths in accordance with the medical evidence. Families of the deceased have long campaigned for new inquests.

Mr Butterly brought his High Court proceedings following submissions to the coroner when she circulated a draft of “uncontroversial facts” last November, Mr O’Higgins said.

The case is against the coroner, the Minister for Justice and Attorney General. The families of the 47 deceased represented before the Stardust Inquest, the Garda Commissioner, Dublin City Council and Patricia Kennedy, mother of Marie Kennedy, are notice parties in the case.

Phoenix Law, the solicitors representing most of the families, made submissions to the coroner’s November draft saying unlawful killing/unlawful death by gross criminal negligence should be considered in connection with all the circumstances of the fire including the management and conduct of the nightclub.

It was also argued that primary evidence should be called at the inquest in relation to these issues, counsel said.

Mr O’Higgins said his side never suggested that the way the Stardust was managed, insofar as it is relevant, should not be considered. However, he said it did not follow that the question of unlawful killing should be considered and it was outside the Coroners Acts to do so.

Counsel said the families had been granted free legal aid for the inquests, which his client did not object to, but that Mr Butterly should be entitled to the same aid.

The case continues before Mr Justice Charles Meenan.