Owner of Stardust granted permission to bring judicial review over new inquests

A senior High Court judge has said he wants a legal action brought by former Stardust manager Eamon Butterly aimed at preventing a new inquest into the disaster from making him a target for a verdict of unlawful killing heard as soon as possible.

Mr Butterly claims the new hearing could wrongfully make him a target for a verdict of unlawful killing.

He and his family owned the Artane nightclub when fire broke out leading to 48 deaths and 128 being injured on the night of February 13/14, 1981.

There were several inquiries over the years including inquests in 1982 which recorded deaths in accordance with the medical evidence.

Following a long campaign by the families of those who died in the blaze the government in 2019 directed the holding of fresh inquests due to an “insufficiency of inquiry as to how the deaths occurred namely a failure to sufficiently consider those of the surrounding circumstances that concern the cause or causes of the fire”.

On Monday Mr Justice Charles Meenan, who presides over the High Court's judicial review list said he was prepared to grant Mr Butterly permission to bring his challenge.

Lawyers representing many of the victim’s families opposed Mr Butterly’s application.

They had argued the bringing of such a challenge regarding a possible finding by the inquest was “premature”.

His decision to launch such proceedings at “a very late stage” just weeks before the new inquest is likely to start, was also “bordering on the unthinkable”, Sean Guerin SC for the families said.

Noting the families’ objections, the judge said that while he was not making any rulings at this stage on the merits of Mr Butterly’s challenge, he was prepared to grant the applicant permission to bring his proceedings.

The Judge said he was satisfied Mr Butterly had raised grounds in his action that are arguable, and that the legal threshold allowing his claim to go before the courts had been crossed.

The judge said he was mindful that “time is of the essence” and that the hurt and pain suffered by the families of those who had lost members in the tragic events of February 1981 “has not dimmed” over those years.

The judge said it is in the best interests of all the parties that the judicial review proceedings be heard as soon as possible.

While the families had formally opposed the leave application, their lawyers had agreed to a telescope or hybrid hearing where both the application for leave and the main action would be heard at the same time, the judge noted.

The granting of leave at this stage of the proceedings, he added, would expedite the process.

The judge said all the legal documents in the case should be exchanged between the parties in the coming weeks and adjourned the case for mention to a date in late March.

Mr Butterly's action is against Dublin District Coroner Dr Myra Cullinane, the Minister for Justice and the Attorney General.

The families of the 47 deceased represented before the Stardust Inquest, the Garda Commissioner, Dublin City Council and Patricia Kennedy, mother of Marie Kennedy, are notice parties in the case.

Mr Butterly seeks an order prohibiting the coroner from conducting the inquests in a manner which involves an investigation or consideration of a possible verdict of unlawful killing.

He also seeks an order quashing the coroner’s decision to refuse to rule out an unlawful killing verdict.

He seeks declarations including an unlawful killing verdict is not one that may be lawfully returned under the Coroners Acts.

Mr Butterly represented by Paul O’Higgins SC, claims the coroner has refused to rule out the possibility that a jury can bring in a verdict of unlawful killing despite submissions he made to her arguing against this.

The Coroner was directed to hold the new inquests and she conducted pre-inquest hearings during which the question of whether a jury could reach a verdict of unlawful killing became an issue.

She refused to rule out the question of a verdict of unlawful killing, it is claimed.

Mr Butterly’s lawyers said the “proposed targets of the claim of unlawful killing” put forward by lawyers for families of the deceased consisted of four named individuals and a company.

Mr Butterly appeared to be the “only living natural person” among those, the court heard.

It meant he would be “clearly named for the killing by implication if her and other persons in this group were to be found guilty of unlawful killing in the course of these inquests”, it was also argued.