The High Court has ruled that a jury at the Stardust fire inquests may return a verdict of unlawful killing only if no person is identified or identifiable. It upheld the Dublin Coroner’s February 2022 decision not to rule out that verdict before the inquests began, and refused the relief sought by Eamonn Butterly.
Mr Justice Charles Meenan said an inquest is an inquisitorial fact-finding process, not a trial to determine or apportion civil or criminal liability. The Coroners Acts permit a broad inquiry into the circumstances of a death, but prohibit investigating civil or criminal liability and prohibit verdicts that censure or exonerate a person.
The case arose after Mr Butterly asked the Coroner to rule out unlawful killing as a possible verdict in the inquests into the 48 deaths in the 1981 fire. The families’ submissions had argued that the circumstances, including the conduct of Stardust management, staff and agents, should be examined and that unlawful killing was at least arguable. Those were submissions, not findings by the High Court.
The judge rejected Mr Butterly’s main argument that unlawful killing could never be a lawful inquest verdict. He said such a verdict can state a fact about the circumstances of a death without deciding who bears legal responsibility, provided no person is identified or identifiable.
The judgment does not decide what verdict the Stardust jury may return. No evidence had yet been heard. Justice Meenan said it would be for the Coroner, after considering the evidence and parties’ submissions, to direct the jury on which verdicts are available. He observed that detailed evidence about the building’s design and condition, inspections, maintenance and management could make an unlawful-killing verdict harder to leave to the jury if a person became identifiable.
The judge also noted that a previous tribunal had criticised aspects of the building’s design and management and attributed responsibility to Eamonn and Patrick Butterly. Those were findings of the Keane Tribunal, recounted in this judgment; they were not findings made in this judicial review. The judgment’s observations about possible evidence and verdicts were expressly provisional.
The High Court ruled that the Coroner’s February 16, 2022 decision was correct in law and refused the requested orders. The separate issue of legal costs was left for later consideration, with submissions directed by November 18, 2022 and a further listing on November 25.