A “significant” witness at the Stardust inquests will not be able to testify, the final pre-inquest hearing has been told.
Dublin coroner, Dr Myra Cullinane, speaking at the last hearing before the inquests start on Tuesday, said a number of witnesses indicated a preference not to attend, while another lived outside the jurisdiction and another could not attend due to medical reasons.
The inquests into the deaths of 48 young people at the Stardust nightclub in Artane, in February 1981 get under way on Tuesday at the Pillar Room on the Rotunda hospital campus.
They will open with pen-portraits of each victim read into the record.
All 48 Stardust deaths the result of unlawful killing
Stardust reimagined: ‘It’s time for other people to fulfil their dreams here, what our loved ones never got to do’
Stardust campaigner Antoinette Keegan pulls out of general election and distances herself from National Party
Irish YouTube guru Paddy Galloway sticks it to stuffy career-guidance counsellors everywhere
Witnesses will begin giving evidence on June 7th.
Dr Cullinane said “a number” of witnesses had indicated they preferred not to attend the inquests. Among them, she said was a staff member on the night of the fire, “who has particular knowledge of the staffing on the night”. She said she was “happy to summons that witness”.
Another who submitted they preferred not to attend was “extra-jurisdictional” and Dr Cullinan had “no powers in that case” to summons them.
“The court has been made aware of the unavailability, due to medical reasons, of witness number 20 which is a significant witness. But I have doctor’s certificates etc in that regard so in those circumstances the witness’s evidence will require to be read into the record.”
She said the 15-person jury had been asked to assemble early on Tuesday in case any had a “legitimate reason” to be excused, in which case they would be replaced by someone from a nine-person reserve panel.
There was some discussion between Dr Cullinane and Sean Guerin SC for the majority of the bereaved families, about the order in which witnesses would be called.
He requested that she alter her running order so witnesses who were patrons on the night gave evidence first. Dr Cullinane had planned to call staff and management witnesses first. Mr Guerin said this “does appear to us to be a cause of concern”.
He said “those who went there on the night [are] expecting to be received and accommodated in a safe and hospitable way, those are the witnesses of the first importance in the inquest process. They are those who are most closely related to the victims of the fire and some are victims themselves. We do think the natural order would be that the patrons of the premises would be called first.”
Dr Cullinane said she had chosen the running order to provide a chronological account of what happened, believing it to be the clearest method for the jury..
“One of the modules I have accepted as being relevant is ‘preparations for the night, pre-planning and previous events’. So, it relates to chronology.”
Mr Guerin said “very often, in for example a criminal trial” evidence relating to the central event is heard first. Dr Cullinane said “this is not” a criminal trial.
“It is not,” continued Mr Guerin, “but just in terms of the way in which evidence is presented, very often you start with the immediate situation and then you take the immediate aftermath ... and then after having presented those core facts one steps back and over the course of a period of days or weeks, one presents in a very carefully layered and scheduled way the background evidence that led up to those facts.
“The core facts in this case are not preparations that were made for the night. The core facts here are the starting of the fire, the experience of the patrons.”
Dr Cullinane said she would “certainly give it consideration” but added: “My primary concern is a jury at these inquests follows the evidence and understands their task. They are not in a criminal trial. They are at an inquest”.
