After more than four decades since the tragic Stardust nightclub fire, the verdicts for each of the 48 lives lost in the disaster will be delivered on Thursday afternoon at the Dublin coroner’s court. The victims’ families are scheduled to gather there in the Pillar Room of the Rotunda Hospital, which has served as the court’s location since April 2023.
It has been a lengthy process, with an excess of 90 days spent absorbing testimony from 373 witnesses during the investigation into the deaths of the 48 individuals, who were between 16 and 27 years old. The fatal fire incident took place in the north Dublin ballroom on 14th February 1981.
There exists five possible verdicts to be reached: accidental, misadventure, unlawful killing, an open verdict, or a narrative. The general expectation, however, leans towards the unlawful killing verdict for each person’s death.
Thursday will bear emotional significance for those like Lisa Lawlor, the daughter of Francis (25) and Maureen (26) Lawlor – both victims of the fire. She was merely a one-year-old infant when her parents lost their lives. Lisa, as she expressed on Wednesday, is hopeful that the judgement will bring about the justice her parents deserved for the past 43 years. She considers this conclusion a relief and, despite the emotional rollercoaster, ultimately gratifying.
Meanwhile, Gertrude Barrett, whose son Michael (17) perished in the fire, shared a different perspective. She anticipates no significant change in her feelings following the verdict, as it won’t bring Michael back. Gertrude hopes, however, that the decision will clear out the tarnished reputation of her lost son, accused unjustly posthumously of being a potential arsonist by the Keane tribunal in 1981. This day will also serve as honour and acknowledgment to all 48 victims.
In 1981, an investigative tribunal led by Mr Justice Ronan Keane had concluded that the fire was likely started intentionally, a claim considered as arson. However, this conclusion was officially erased from public documents by the Oireachtas in 2009.
At slightly past 2pm, coroner Dr Myra Cullinane communicated to the jurists that she would consider a general majority verdict after being informed by the head juror that a unanimous consensus could not be achieved. Not long after this, the seven women and five men of the jury returned to the courtroom having determined their verdicts, as communicated by the head juror.
The official announcement of the verdicts was scheduled for Thursday, 2pm. This allowed for administrative duties to be concluded and provided time for the relatives to plan their court attendance in person or via internet. Dr Cullinane cautioned the jurors not to share the details of their judgment or deliberations with anybody, stating that a violation of this rule may lead to contempt of court proceedings.
The jury had been in deliberations for 11 days, with the task of discovering the specifics surrounding the fire’s circumstances. They had to consider elements like carpet tiles lining the internal walls, polyurethane foam in the seating and the low ceiling height where the fire initially flared up inside the venue, assessing if these factors contributed to the fatalities.
Furthermore, they were required to confirm the identity of each casualty and determine the date, location, and reason for their deaths. Following these, they were to make an individual judgment in each case. Last month, while instructing the jury, Dr Cullinane explained that to provide a verdict of illicit manslaughter, they needed to establish that a person or people failed severely in adopting necessary safety measures to prevent hurt to others. She added that such failure should be a major cause of a death and this had to be confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt.
The inquests were conducted due to relentless pursuits led by relatives and an order by then Attorney General Séamus Woulfe in 2019. He noted that the initial inquests in 1982 into the situations surrounding the fire lacked sufficient examination.
Do tune into our Inside Politics podcast for insightful political discussions and reviews.