The High Court has rejected a challenge by the former manager of the Stardust nightclub to the new inquest into the deaths of 48 people at the club more than 41 years ago.
Eamon Butterly wanted the court to rule that a verdict of unlawful killing was not open to the jury at the inquest and that the coroner should give the jury this direction at the outset.
However, Mr Justice Charles Meenan found a verdict of unlawful killing was permitted where no person was identified or identifiable as being responsible for the killing.
He said it may be that the more detailed the evidence is on the circumstances of the death, the less permissible a verdict of unlawful killing will be.
But he ruled it was for the coroner having heard all the evidence to direct the jury as to the permissible verdicts.
Mr Butterly had argued that he would be the target of any such verdict and that the jury should be told by the coroner from the beginning that they could not bring in verdicts of unlawful killing.
The High Court has rejected a challenge by the former manager of the Stardust nightclub to the new inquest into the deaths of 48 people at the club more than 41 years ago | Read more: https://t.co/uPW3NtSA8d pic.twitter.com/6INGfl6aP2
— RTÉ News (@rtenews) November 2, 2022
He and his family owned the club at the time the fire broke out in the early hours of Valentine's Day 1981.
His challenge was opposed by the coroner, the Minister for Justice, and the Attorney General as well as the families of the deceased, the Garda Commissioner and Dublin City Council.
The judge said that the grief and loss caused by the tragic event had not diminished over 41 years and had been compounded by a strong sense of injustice, focusing on the belief that there had been a failure to properly answer the most basic questions of where and how the fire started.
He appended the names and addresses of the 48 people who died to his judgment.
The decision was welcomed by Phoenix Law, which represents the families of 47 of the 48 Stardust victims.
"The families we act for are relieved with today's news and are hopeful that the Stardust Fire Inquests can now proceed as planned," said Darragh Mackin of Phoenix Law.
"The significance of a potential verdict of unlawful killing cannot be overstated for these families.
"They have from the outset maintained that such a verdict ought to be considered by a jury.
"Today’s decision not to exclude such a verdict, is of a massive importance.
"To have the backing of the High Court that these inquests should proceed with a full and fair investigation and for all verdicts to be on the table, as is normally the case, is a meaningful endorsement of the families’ pursuit of truth and justice in the Stardust fire Inquests."
Mr Mackin, when asked what happens next on RTÉ's News at One, said: "Judiciary proceedings have now concluded.
"As recently as this morning, we have correspondence directly with the coroner's office seeking for the holding of a preliminary hearing so we can now ensure the timetabling of the inquests without delay.
"There is no reason why we cannot now progress to the hearing of these inquests and the families look forward to starting, effectively, this process as soon as practicably possible."
Antoinette Keegan, Chairperson of the Stardust Victim's committee, whose two teenage sisters Mary and Martina died in the fire, has welcomed the verdict.
Also speaking on News at One, Ms Keegan said her parents had fought for information until they died and that since the announcement of the inquest in 2019, over 50 family members of victims have died, while 11 have died since a judicial review was announced in July.
"We don't want to wait any longer, we want the inquests to start as soon as possible," she said.
She added that the key questions that need to be answered are why it happened, who is responsible and why loved ones have waited 41 years since the original inquest.
"We fought tooth and nail looking for a real verdict and this is the final chapter now that we're going to get a verdict," she said.
"You can't actually let something go when you know there’s something wrong and that’s where we get the energy from.
"We knew were wronged in 1981, we knew it wasn’t arson. But we still never had investigations, it was just a closed door."
The court also rejected an application by Mr Butterly that he should be entitled to apply for legal aid to participate in the inquests or that he would be entitled to seek his costs after its conclusion.
He had said not being entitled to do so was a breach of fair procedures and was fundamentally unfair as it placed him at a disadvantage relative to other interested parties.
However, Mr Justice Meenan found that as he had ruled that a verdict of unlawful killing was only available if no person was identified or identifiable, then Mr Butterly's concern about his good name did not arise.
He said he had already found that an inquest was a non-judgmental, fact-finding inquisitorial process.
He said Mr Butterly was entitled to fair procedures but these were not the same as those that would arise in an adversarial process.
He said that although an inquest dealt with extremely important issues about the how, when, where and circumstances of a person’s death, it was an "administrative process".
