Eamon Butterly, former manager of the Stardust nightclub in north Dublin in which 48 people died in a fire in 1981, “stands over” the “malicious damage” claim which resulted in his family’s company being awarded more than £500,000 in compensation.
On his seventh day in the witness box at Dublin District Coroner’s Court on Thursday, Mr Butterly (78) agreed it had been “wrong” and “very, very dangerous” to continue locking exit doors until about midnight despite “repeated” warnings from Dublin Corporation since 1979.
Fresh inquests into the deaths of 48 people, aged 16 to 27, at the Artane ballroom in the early hours of February 14th, 1981 are under way following a 2019 direction by then attorney general Séamus Woulfe that they be held.
Sean Guerin SC, for families of nine of the dead, outlined to Mr Butterly a series of apparent electrical faults in the Stardust in the months before the fire. These included sparks observed in a gap in the ceiling, a badly connected immersion tank, gaps in trunking around wiring in the roof space and a neon sign “shorting” outside on the night of the fire.
Had any of these been brought to his attention they would “of course” have merited investigation, said Mr Butterly. He believed the electrical works in the venue had been “excellent”, however.
Mr Guerin put it to Mr Butterly that Scott’s Foods, owned by his family and which owned the Stardust, “had an important financial interest in proving” that the fire “was caused maliciously”.
“I’m sure it had, yes,” said the witness. “But sure Mr Justice Keane had already said it was arson, probably arson.”
In his 1982 report following the tribunal of investigation into the disaster, Mr Justice Ronan Keane said the cause of the fire was “probable arson”. This finding was removed from the public record in 2009.
“I take it you’re agreeing the company had a very large financial interest in it being proved that the damage was caused maliciously,” said Mr Guerin on Thursday.
“Yes,” said Mr Butterly.
“And to this day ... you are anxious to stand over that finding ... that it was right?”
“Yes.”
“And always has been?”
“Yes, because that’s what ... our solicitors told us to do.”
“And that’s why you asserted it was the best-wired premises in Dublin to this jury?”
“Yes ... I am standing over the company’s malicious damage claim for the fire, yes.”
Brenda Campbell KC, for families of nine of the dead, took Mr Butterly through several written and verbal warnings from Dublin Corporation about exit doors being found obstructed and locked. The venue had been inspected 22 times between late 1979 and mid-1980.
Five months before the fire Mr Butterly had been told “in no uncertain terms that locks and chains on your premises were completely unacceptable when patrons were there,” said Ms Campbell.
She referenced a letter from the corporation in January 1981 to the late Patrick Butterly threatening to institute proceedings against the Stardust unless it received “immediate” assurances that doors were kept unobstructed were provided.
In his response, on January 27th, 1981, Eamon Butterly said: “I assure you that all exits will be kept clear when public are on the premises.”
Despite all these warnings, and at the time of writing the letter, he had issued instructions to staff to keep exit doors locked until about midnight on disco nights, said Ms Campbell.
“You knew on issuing those instructions that that was very, very dangerous indeed,” she said.
“Yes,” he replied.
“And you knew it was in breach of the council’s requirements?” she continued.
“That’s right, yes,” he added.
“And you knew it was a serious fire hazard?,” she asked.
“That’s right,” he replied.
“And you did it anyway?” she said.
“Yes .. well, OK,” said Mr Butterly.
“And not only that, but you put in writing to the corporation that you were taking the safety requirements with the utmost seriousness in order to make sure they did not in any way affect your license to operate those premises and to continue inviting children and young people, young adults on to your premises on a weekly basis,” she said.
“Yes,” he replied.
Ms Campbell asked whether he had been “blagging, dodging, or trying to circumvent the requirements. Or did you just not care?”
“I did care,” he said.
“Then why, Mr Butterly? Why were you behaving in this way?” she asked.
Ms Campbell asked whether there was arrogance or greed at play.
“There was not greed. And it wasn’t arrogance ... It was wrong,” said Mr Butterly.
His evidence continues on Friday.
