After 122 days of hearings, including more than 90 days of evidence, the jury in the Stardust fire inquests has retired to consider its verdict, including possibly one of unlawful killing.
The 12 jurors will commence their deliberations next week.
They must return 48 verdicts – in respect of each of the deceased, as to their identity, place, date and cause of death, as well as one overriding verdict based on the circumstances of the deaths.
Five potential verdicts are available to the jury: accidental death, death by misadventure, unlawful killing, an open verdict or a narrative verdict.
Christmas TV and movie guide: the best shows and films to watch
Laura Kennedy: We like the ideal of Christmas. The reality, though, is often strained, sad and weird
How Britain’s prison system is teetering on the brink of collapse
Fostering at Christmas: ‘We once had two boys, age 9 and 11, who had never had a Christmas tree’
The Stardust fire in the early hours of February 14th, 1981, claimed 48 lives. Those who died were aged 16 to 27.
Dublin coroner Dr Myra Cullinane said the focus was now on the jury. Addressing them she said: “To sit on this jury brings with it great responsibility, You must approach your task in an objective manner, based on the law ... and the facts you have heard in evidence. These are the only considerations for you in reaching your findings.”
She said they must be “dispassionate” and “clinical” and “put emotions aside” adding they were “under no time pressure” to reach their conclusions.
Explaining the verdicts she spent time detailing the parameters within which the jurors must confine themselves if considering an ‘unlawful killing’ verdict.
“You have heard evidence in this case about how certain things were done and how they might have been done differently. Some of that evidence sought to set out a particular version of events ... However, neither you nor I are allowed to record any conclusion ... which attaches criminal responsibility or civil responsibility to any person,” she said.
The inquests have heard evidence alleging, on the night of the fire, exit doors at the Artane, Dublin, nightclub were locked or obstructed; that staff had not been trained in responding to an emergency or how to use fire extinguishers; that windows in toilets had been sealed shut with metal plates and bars; that carpet tiles used to line most of the internal walls were flammable and central to the rapid spread of the blaze; that electrical wiring was faulty; and that the ceiling in the area where the fire was first observed inside the club was below permitted minimum height.
Evidence was also heard that the club was allegedly frequently overcrowded; that there were not enough doormen and some doormen were letting patrons in through side entrances for less than the cover charge at the main door.
Dr Cullinane, referencing sections 30 and 31 of the Coroner’s Act 1962, said: “Neither the verdict nor any rider to the verdict at an inquest shall contain a censure or exoneration of any person”. A verdict of “unlawful killing” must not attribute criminality or civil liability to any person or organisation, she said.
“The verdicts and findings are about acts and omissions – they are neutral statements about where it happened and how it happened. But not who did or did not do those things,” she said.
There was “a very specific test” they must apply to arrive at an unlawful killing verdict, she continued.
“You must find there has been a failure by a person or people, to a very high degree, to observe such a course of action that experience shows to be necessary, if substantial injury to others is to be avoided ... and that such failure was a substantial cause of the death [or deaths].”
This verdict was available only where death occurs “in the most serious of circumstances,” she said and could be returned only where the jury was satisfied “beyond a reasonable doubt that each of the elements of the test ... are proven to that legal standard”.
“The facts are for you,” she told the jury. “If you are considering a verdict of unlawful killing the following matters should be borne in mind ... You should apply the standards of 1981 in deciding the extent of any failures that arose and not the standards of today.
“You should bear in mind the circumstances the people were facing at the time when they made decisions they made. You may conclude there were serious failures ... and each of those failings were of a high degree and that those failings were a substantial cause of the death.”
In considering other verdicts the standard of proof was “on balance of probabilities,” she said provided hypothetical examples of circumstance in which such verdicts could be reached.
The jury will return to consider their verdicts next Wednesday.
- Listen to our Inside Politics Podcast for the latest analysis and chat
- Sign up for push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
- Find The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date
