New inquests into the Stardust tragedy have begun today

New inquests into the Stardust nightclub tragedy have begun this morning and are expected to be the most extensive held to date.

On February 14th, 1981 the so-called Stardust tragedy claimed the lives of 48 young people and injured over 200 when a fire broke out at the Stardust nightclub in Artane. The tragedy was the worst fire disaster in State history.

The fresh inquests come after months of delays due to legal action taken by the nightclub’s former manager Eamon Butterly over the decision of ‘unlawful killing’ to be included as a potential verdict.

The High Court ruled however last November that unlawful killing would be a verdict made available to potential jurors.

A jury has already been selected for the inquests into the fire.

Before the inquests began at 11am, family members of the deceased victims congregated at the Garden of Remembrance, and walked together to the Pillar Rooms at the Rotunda Hospital where the inquiry is taking place.

A formal call of witnesses will begin with staff and management, before patrons of the nightclub will appear to be heard.

Last Thursday at the pre-inquest hearing, Sean Guerin SC earmarked this approach as a “source of concern.”

“The first is that patrons of the premises and those who went there on the night with friends and family expecting to be received and accommodated in a safe and hospitable way, that those are the witnesses of first importance in the inquest process,” Guerin explained.

“We do think that the natural order (is) for the patrons of the premises to be heard first.”

Dr Myra Cullinane, Dublin’s district coroner outlined that in the interest of “chronology”, staff and management would be called first. This order, she continued, would also take into account one of the modules of the inquest which is the preparations for the night of the fire.

On the other hand, Guerin argued for the case to call patrons and emergency services personnel first as information in their testimonies could potentially lead to evidential issues which would then need to be addressed by staff and management.

“If you call them (staff) first without them having had an opportunity to hear that evidence, the very real possibility arises that some or many of them have to be recalled,” he said.

“That’s a practical and evidential aspect of the issue,” Guerin added, explaining that chronological presentation was not necessarily the best way for a jury to to assimilate information.

Dr Cullinane has said she will give more consideration to the order of witnesses.