The High Court has refused relief sought by Eamonn Butterly over legal aid and recovery of legal costs for his participation in the forthcoming Stardust inquests. The separate question of costs in the judicial review was left for later consideration.
In a judgment delivered electronically on 2 November 2022, Mr Justice Charles Meenan said Butterly, whom the Dublin District Coroner had named as an “interested party”, could not apply for legal aid under section 60 of the Coroners Acts. That provision allows a coroner to grant free legal aid; the notice parties’ legal representatives had applied for aid for families of the 47 people who died.
Butterly sought declarations that the absence of a mechanism for him to seek legal aid or recover participation costs breached fair procedures and constitutional rights, or rendered the relevant legislation invalid. He argued that he would be at a considerable disadvantage compared with other interested parties. The judgment records those as his submissions, not findings of the court.
The judge said the constitutional rights to access the courts, protect one’s good name and equality of arms were not engaged at an inquest. He described an inquest under the Coroners Acts as a non-judgmental, fact-finding inquisitorial process, rather than an adversarial hearing in which Butterly was a party defending himself against allegations. He said Butterly remained entitled to fair procedures during the inquest, but those procedures were not of the kind that apply in adversarial proceedings.
The judgment also referred to a separate judgment delivered the same day, which concluded that an unlawful-killing verdict was available in the forthcoming inquests provided no person was identified or identifiable. The restrictions arise under sections 30 and 31 of the Coroners Acts, the court said, and meant Butterly’s concern about his good name did not arise at the inquest.
Justice Meenan refused the reliefs sought. He directed that submissions on the judicial-review costs issue be filed by 18 November and adjourned that matter until 25 November to consider how costs should be dealt with. The judgment does not state the later outcome of that costs issue.