Management of Stardust on night of tragedy was ‘shambolic’, inquests hear

Management at the Stardust nightclub in north Dublin, in which 48 people died in a fire in 1981, was “not fit for purpose” former manager Eamon Buttlery has agreed.

On his eighth and final day in the witness box at Dublin district coroner’s court on Friday, Mr Butterly heard Bernard Condon SC for families of 10 of those who died describe management on the night as “shambolic”.

He later heard Grainne Larkin, council for Dublin City Council, formerly Dublin Corporation, put it to him he had been “dishonest” in his dealings with the local authority, by giving “solemn” assurances three weeks before the fire he would keep exits “available” while simultaneously planning to weld metal plates and bars to windows and to lock exits until as late at midnight.

Fresh inquests are under way into the deaths of 48 people, aged 16 to 27, in a fire at the Artane ballroom in the early hours of February 14th, 1981.

All 48 Stardust deaths the result of unlawful killing

---

Jury in Stardust inquest

---

How did the unfounded claim that the Stardust fire was caused by arson take hold?

---

Joe Duffy’s snap judgment on Simon Harris’s Stardust apology somehow captures the wider mood

---

Mr Condon outlined some of the responses, described by him as “extreme” and “illegal”, by Mr Butterly’s management to “relatively trivial” security issues. These included the locking of exit doors until about 11.30pm on nights discos were held and the welding of metal plates and bars to seal toilet windows.

The inquests have heard these measures, put in place in the weeks before the tragedy, were in response to patrons letting their friends in for free, doormen letting people in through side exits and charging them less than the entrance fee and people handing in drink and “weapons” through toilet windows.

Mr Condon said bylaws specifically forbade the blocking of windows.

“Some of the most harrowing accounts are given of people standing outside on the footpath and listening to people screaming for their very lives,” he said. Had they not been welded they would have had access to “air which would have been a great assistance”.

“It was an extreme reaction, consistent with another extreme reaction to relatively trivial problems which was to lock the doors when patrons were on the premises. Isn’t that so, Mr Butterly?”

“Yes,” said the witness.

“And the management of a company that is doing that is not a management that is fit for purpose is it?”

“If you say so.”

“A few fellas are letting their friends in the door, or doormen ... and your response to both of those relatively trivial difficulties is an extreme response of locking people into the premises which is illegal. A management which does that is a management not fit for purpose. Do you agree?

“I agree,” said Mr Butterly.

Egregious lines

Mr Condon said “one of the most egregious lines” Mr Butterly had used in his “entire presentation” was his assertion that the policy of locking the doors had been “forced” on him by people letting their friends in for free.

He said Mr Butterly had had “plenty of other options” including employing more doormen.

“It was a choice you made – to lock people into the premises” until a time chosen by management.

Turning to the night of February 13th, 1981, Mr Condon asked how, given it was an over 21s disco, 83 per cent of the those there were under 21, and 65 people were aged between 14 and 16.

He said Mr Butterly had been watching the patrons come in “for much of the evening”.

Mr Butterly denied this.

“Conveniently Mr Buttlery, you’re like McCavity. You’re never there are you? McCavity was the cat who was never there when things went wrong. You’re never there. You’re off having a cup of tea now. The issue is this ... The doormen weren’t really that interested in what age people were. They were only interested in getting the money off people coming in. They didn’t care what age they were.”

Mr Butterly rejected this.

“Well how did 83 per cent, 83 per cent, 83 per cent, Mr Butterly; how are 83 per cent of people in there under the age of 21? How did that happen?”

Mr Buttlery said there were no age cards at the time and it was difficult for doormen to judge ages.

Mr Condon, rehearsing previous evidence on the state of exits, referenced a bottle skip obstructing exit 5, chairs in the way of exit 4, a DJ van parked right outside exit 3, and a push bar on the wrong way at exit 6.

“If you put them all together it was pretty shambolic wasn’t it? Pretty shambolic on your watch on the 13th of February.”

“No.”

Citing the evidence of one doorman, Austin Bell, who said he didn’t direct people to exit 1 when the fire broke out because he thought it was locked, Mr Condon said Mr Butterly’s policy of keeping doors locked until about 11.30pm had “allowed this to happen”.

“Do you accept this is an extraordinary thing to have happened?”

Mr Butterly said: “At the time and on the night ...[head doorman] Tom Kennan told me the doors were open.”

Grainne Larkin, counsel for Dublin City Council, took the witness through the fire-safety bylaws and his correspondence with the local authority promising to keep exits “clear”, three weeks before the blaze.

“That letter in light of the fact ... you were still locking the doors up to and including the night of the fire, until 11.30 has to be dishonest,” she said. “Mr Butterly I have to put it to you that you didn’t comply with the bylaw ... you say it was ignorance but it would have been as easy for you to read [them].”

“I agree with you.”

“You did continue to lock the doors by your own admission which again was another breach.”

“I agree. It was wrong, yes.”

The inquests resume on Tuesday.