LAST UPDATE | Oct 6th 2023, 6:34 PM

STARDUST MANAGER EAMON Butterly has told an inquest jury that management at the club was not “up to dealing with fire” and agreed it was “not fit for purpose”.

He agreed with lawyers that the only preparation for the possibility of a blaze at the nightclub was that he would “ring the fire brigade”.

Butterly also confirmed that management had responded to “relatively trivial” issues by locking the doors while patrons were on the premises and that this was an “extreme reaction”.

Asked by Bernard Condon SC, for ten of the families of the deceased if management at the club were up to dealing with problems that arose, Butterly said: “They weren’t up to dealing with fire, that’s for sure.”

“That’s the truest word you’ve ever said,” Condon replied. “They weren’t up to it.”

Butterly has today concluded giving evidence to the inquest at Dublin District Coroner’s Court after eight days in the witness box.

Under cross-examination, he told Condon: “I’ve said all along we didn’t know how to give the instructions, I wasn’t qualified.”

“This is extraordinary that you would sit there and say that without acknowledging what an extraordinary failure that was,” the barrister said.

“It was terrible,” the witness replied.

“Why didn’t you get someone else who was an expert ,” the barrister asked. “Why wouldn’t you get someone else who did know what they were talking about. I want to ask you that question. Why didn’t you get someone else to do it?”

“At the time I didn’t, if it was now I would,” said Butterly. “I didn’t. That’s all I can say. If Dublin Fire Brigade or an inspector told us what to do about that it would have been done.”

“It’s always someone else isn’t it Mr Butterly, it was always someone else,” counsel said.

He asked Butterly if, considering there were up to 1,000 people on the premises, the only thought he gave to the possibility of how he would deal with a fire was to ring the fire brigade.

“Is that it?”

“Yeah,” Butterly replied.

Condon put it to the former nightclub manager, on his last day in the witness box, that this was his opportunity to say: “Something fell through the cracks” and the doors were “not opened” on the night of the fire.

“Because you know that to be so, and you know that Tom Kennan never told you that he unlocked the doors, because he didn’t.”

Counsel suggested that any attempt to “try and dress that up” as being the truth was “an affront to decency” and an affront “to the families of those who have suffered”.

“So can you please tell us now the truth,” the barrister said.

In response, Butterly said: “At 11.30pm in the Silver Swan, Tom Kennan told me that ‘all the doors are open’.”

“Even in that answer Mr Butterly you expose yourself as a liar because yesterday you agreed with Mr Fahy that it could have been 12am,” Condon said.

He put it to the former manager that once again he went back to “a mantra”.

“Has that just made you be able to continue to face what has happened? That you believe this yourself? Have you convinced yourself of this?” Condon asked.

“I do believe it, I haven’t convinced myself,” Butterly replied.

Condon put it to Butterly that welding the windows of the toilets shut to “stop a few bottles of vodka getting in the window” was “extreme”.

Butterly responded that these windows weren’t fire escapes.

“When people are desperate, they will attempt to get out any way they can and one must allow for that possibility,” said Condon, adding that some of the most harrowing evidence given in the inquest was witnesses who heard people “screaming for their very lives” behind “welded walls”.

“It could be an access to some air which could have been a great assistance to these people,” said counsel.

He said this was an “extreme reaction” consistent with another “extreme reaction” to relatively trivial matters which was to lock the doors while patrons were on the premises.

“Isn’t that so Mr Butterly?”

“Yes,” the witness replied.

“And the management of a company which was doing that is not a management fit for purpose is it?” asked counsel.

“If you say so,” Butterly replied.

The lawyer suggested to Butterly that one of the most “egregious” and “offensive” things he had said was the assertion that the locking of the doors was “forced” on him by the fact that a large number of people were getting in free due to the actions of their friends.

Butterly agreed that he had “plenty of other options” including putting “a man on each door”.

“So it wasn’t forced on you. It was a choice you made,” counsel said.

Condon said the disco on the night of the fire was an over 21’s event, yet 83% of the people there that night were under 21 and there were 65 people there who were aged 14, 15 and 16.

Butterly said it was the job of the doormen who monitor who was let in.

“You were there too,” Condon said. “You were there overseeing it. Your eagle eye was stuck everywhere I suggest to you.”

Butterly said he was there “for a while”.

Counsel put it to the witness that he was like McCavity. “McCavity was the cat who was never there when things went wrong,” he said.

He put it to the witness that the doormen weren’t really interested in what age people were, only in getting the money off people coming in and that Butterly “didn’t care really what age they were”.

“83% of the people in there, Mr Butterly, were under the age of 21. How does that happen?”

“Because the doormen must have thought that they were over 21 and there was no such thing then as cards for ages. They didn’t bring their passports or anything like that,” said Butterly.

Grainne Larkin BL, appearing for Dublin City Council, put it to Butterly that it was a legitimate expectation of someone that pays to come to an event that they can get into an event and get out of an event.

“Exactly, yeah,” said Butterly. “But they weren’t locked when the fire happened.”

“That’s a matter the jury has to determine. I’m not going to say anything about that,” said Larkin.

Earlier today, the jury heard that the price of carpet tiles used on the walls of the club did “influence” Butterly’s decision to purchase them but wasn’t the “first thought” in his mind.

However, Butterly denied purchasing the tiles from salesman Declan Conway because he could “get them on the cheap”. He said his first thought was to get the walls “looking well”.

Butterly was asked by Brenda Campbell KC, representing a number of the families of the deceased, if the price of the tiles had influenced his decision to purchase them.

She outlined evidence given by Company Secretary Graham Whitehead on behalf of Illingworth, the UK company who supplied the carpet tiles which were used on the walls of the Stardust nightclub, to the original 1981 tribunal of inquiry before Mr Justice Ronan Keane.

In his evidence, Whitehead said that this particular tile was coming to the end of its life and the company was selling these tiles off as there was another tile on the market to take its place. He told the tribunal that this was reflected in the price.

Campbell asked Butterly if he was attracted to “sticking these carpet tiles on your wall because they were cheap and they looked the part”.

“No,” he replied.

“Did the price influence the decision to purchase the carpet tiles?” Campbell pressed.

Butterly said: “The price would influence all decisions” but it wasn’t “the first thought in my mind.” He said his first thought was to get the walls “covered nicely” and “looking well”.

Campbell put it to Butterly that Graham Whitehead told the tribunal that they did not manufacture carpet tiles for use on the walls and would not “under any circumstances” recommend the use of these tiles on the wall.

Asked what his answer was to this, Butterly said he “didn’t know that”. He said he bought the tiles from [salesman] Declan Conway on the basis that he provided a fire certificate for them. “I know nothing about what he said or did with the company in England…I know nothing about that,” he said.

The inquest has already heard that, during a 1981 inquiry, evidence was given that the carpet tiles were the most substantial contributor to the spread of the fire. It heard that a surface spread of flame test was carried out and these tiles were found to be of Class 4 rating, not Class 1 as required.

The jury also heard evidence that in his statement, Conway said that he spoke to Butterly, who requested that Conway obtain a fire certificate from the manufacturer of the tiles.

Conway said he was able to get the certificate that met the British standard specification.

Making a difference

A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.

For the price of one cup of coffee each week you can make sure we can keep reliable, meaningful news open to everyone regardless of their ability to pay.

Support us Learn More