A new round of inquests into the tragic Stardust tragedy in 1981 was commanded by the Attorney General as a response to the relentless efforts made by the families of the victims. The investigations in 1982 merely determined the medical causes of death for the 48 young victims but didn’t delve into the cause, spread and wider circumstances of the fire.
Justice Ronan Keane was the chair of an enquiry tribunal, which reviewed testimonies from over 366 witnesses over a span of 122 days. In June 1982, it released an exhaustive report that called out “heedlessly hazardous practices” and poor safety standards at the disco. It also included suggestions to prevent similar calamities in the future. What was controversial about the report was its claim that the probable cause of the fire was arson.
The government, following a plea from the Stardust victims committee in 2008, assigned senior counsel Paul Coffey to re-evaluate the fire inquiry. He concluded, based on the presented evidence, that attributing the fire to arson was not objectively justified. Neither was it feasible to determine the fire’s cause based on any new evidence available at the time, nor was a fresh inquiry in the public’s interest. An amendment was suggested concerning the arson claim, which was then made public record by the Oireachtas.
In March 2019, requests were placed to Attorney General Séamus Woulfe by the families for another round of inquests. The request was based on evidence such as witness statements and expert debates suggesting the cause and location of the original fire determined by the Keane tribunal was potentially incorrect.
Towards the end of 2019, the Attorney commanded new inquests, stating his belief that there was a ‘lack of detailed inquiry into the causes of occurrence of the deaths, mainly, a deficiency in thoroughly scrutinising the associated circumstances leading to the cause or causes of the fire’.
Dr Myra Cullinane, the Dublin coroner, oversaw the 2023 inquests, which spanned 122 days. During this time, the jury listened to 90 days of evidence provided by 373 individuals as witnesses.
Distinct from the 1982 inquests and the tribunal, the families had more resources and were more actively participating in the 2023-2024 inquests. There were five legal teams that stood for various families, each team emphasising a different issue of common concern and leading on it.
A thorough analysis of each individual’s death circumstances took place during the 2023 inquests, something that the families had long desired as they believed there were still numerous unresolved questions following the 1982 inquests and the tribunal.
The 2023 inquests covered much of the evidential ground handled by the tribunal, yet the notable exception was the exclusion of arson. The latest inquests heard more expert evidence, and the families felt a deeper sense of involvement. The inquests also highlighted the personal narratives of each decedent.
In direct contrast to the 1982 inquests, the jury was presented with five possible verdicts – accidental death, death by misadventure, unlawful killing, an open verdict or a narrative verdict.
During a judicial review undertaken in 2022, Stardust’s proprietor, Eamon Butterly, unsuccessfully tried to eliminate the possibility of the coroner giving a verdict of unlawful killing.
Mr Justice Charles Meenan of the High Court emphasised that the coroner’s responsibility – after hearing the evidence – is to guide the jury on the permissible verdicts at the conclusion of the inquests. An inquest, he explained, is a probing fact-finding trial to ascertain the details surrounding the identity, cause, timing, location and circumstances of a person’s death.
The Coroner’s Acts restrict inquests from examining questions of civil or criminal responsibility and from delivering verdicts that judge a person’s actions, according to a magistrate. However, this restriction does not stop an inquest from establishing the facts surrounding the circumstances of death, as these facts may bear relevance to matters of civil or criminal responsibility in another tribunal.
The judge also stated that in suitable circumstances, an inquest can conclude with a verdict of unlawful killing, but only when the identity of the person or people involved remains unknown.
The system of inquests in Ireland has shown certain structural limitations in their capacity to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights’ Article 2, which mandates legal protection for every individual’s right to life. This inability has been highlighted by recent inquests.
Proposals for changes to the coroner’s system have been put forward by the Coroners Review Group and other parties, resulting in the Coroners Bill 2005, which was superseded by the Coroners Bill 2007. Despite this, the latter has not been passed into law. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission has expressed worry that the State has still not implemented reform in accordance with its obligations under Article 2.