Yesterday’s verdict by the coroner’s jury, delivered on behalf of the bereaved families of the 48 young individuals, aged between 16 and 27, killed in the Stardust tragedy of 1981, provides the most substantial insight into the circumstances surrounding their deaths. There were several unanswered questions remaining despite previous inquiries in 1981, led by Mr Justice Ronan Keane, and two more conducted by Oireachtas in 2008 and 2017.
The families of the deceased upheld their demand for repeat inquests, supported by article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights which safeguards every individual’s right to life under the law. They argued – an argument which was validated by the government – that the original inquests’ inability to fully ascertain the cause and circumstances of the deaths and the origin of the fire was a direct infringement of the convention. In their pursuit of justice, they drew parallels with the Ballymurphy shootings in Belfast and the Hillsborough disaster in Britain.
While the jury’s unanimous verdict of unlawful killing undoubtedly brings mixed feelings, the families can confirm for the first time that their loved ones’ deaths were due to law violations. They awaited this validation for an agonising 43 years.
What ensues is yet to be determined. Dr Myra Cullinane, the presiding coroner, is required to notify the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) of the jury’s verdicts. However, whether it will prompt another investigation remains uncertain. Up till now, no criminal actions have arisen from the Stardust fire, although over 1,400 statements were given to the gardaí and two files were forwarded to the DPP.
The clans seemingly have fewer alternatives within civil law. A legislative compensation panel was set in place by the Government during the 1980s, with the final award granted in 1991. It’s customary in such panels for the petitioners to forfeit any entitlement to other civil procedures.
In the light of no additional legal routes becoming available, the enduring importance of the previous day’s verdicts might just be their justification for the unyielding and respectful pursuit of answers by the families from a Government that occasionally appeared reluctant to meet its duties.
The family’s wounds were evident and remained raw, as confirmed by the touching and potent “pen summaries” of the victims articulated by family members at the commencement of the inquests.
If the prior day’s verdicts eventually provide some tranquillity to their families, then it is a relief that has been significantly delayed.