REPORT
OF THE
INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION
OF
THE STARDUST VICTIMS COMMITTEE’S
CASE
FOR A REOPENED INQUIRY
INTO THE STARDUST FIRE DISASTER
INDEX
CHAPTER / Page1 / INTRODUCTION / 4
2 / A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE GIVEN TO THE TRIBUNAL AS TO THE ORIGIN AND CAUSE OF THE FIRE / 11
3 / THE TRIBUNAL’S FINDING THAT THE FIRE WAS PROBABLY STARTED DELIBERATELY / 41
4 / THE COMMITTEE’S NEW EXPERT AND FACTUAL EVIDENCE AS TO THE ORIGIN AND CAUSE OF THE FIRE / 61
5 / CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 68
6 / APPENDICES / 73
CHAPTER CONTENTS
Chapter / Page1 / INTRODUCTION / 4
I / Introduction / 4
II / Background / 4
III / The Committee’s case for a further Inquiry / 7
IV / The threshold test / 8
2 / A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE GIVEN TO THE TRIBUNAL AS TO THE ORIGIN AND CAUSE OF THE FIRE / 11
I / The Ballroom / 11
(1) / The West Alcove / 14
(2) / The North Alcove / 16
(3) / The north west corner of the Ballroom / 16
(4) / The roof / 17
(5) / A summary of the relevant features of the Ballroom / 18
II / The Fire / 19
(1) / Events Preceding the Fire / 19
(2) / The presence of persons in the West Alcove prior to the sighting of the fire / 21
(3) / The origin and spread of the Fire / 21
(A) / The Fire in the West Alcove / 21
(i) / The presence of a small fire in the north west corner of the West Alcove / 22
(ii) / The rapid spread of fire to the Ballroom / 25
(B) / The evidence of the external eyewitnesses / 28
(C) / Evidence of witnesses who saw the fire both in the West Alcove and in the roof / 31
(D) / The expert evidence / 35
(i) / The scene of the fire / 35
(ii) / The Fire Research Station / 36
(a) / The mechanism of fire spread / 37
(b) / Ad hoc experiments / 38
(iii) / The fire experts / 39
3 / THE TRIBUNAL’S FINDING THAT THE FIRE WAS PROBABLY STARTED DELIBERATELY / 41
I / The contention that the finding is not established by evidence / 41
(1) / The Report / 42
(2) / Comment / 44
(3) / Conclusions / 45
II / The contention that the finding cannot be demonstrated to be objectively justifiable / 45
(1) / Preliminary observations / 45
(2) / Evidential issues of potential significance / 46
(A) / The condition of the seats after the fire / 48
(B) / The perception by PJ Murphy and Leo Doyle of intense and unbearable heat from above the ceiling in the West Alcove / 50
(C) / The heat surge felt by Linda Bishop at 1.33am / 51
(D) / Differences between the fire development characteristics of the actual and the test fires / 52
(i) / The early collapse of the ceiling in the West Alcove / 53
(ii) / The melting of the ceiling / 55
(E) / The apparent failure of the collapse of the ceiling to vent and retard the progress of the fire / 55
(F) / The evidence of external eye-witnesses who observed a substantial fire in the roof prior to 1.46am when according to the Tribunal the fire in the West Alcove first breached the roof / 57
(G) / The height of the flames over the West Alcove / 57
(3) / Comment / 58
(4) / New expert evidence / 60
(5) / Conclusion / 60
4 / THE COMMITTEE’S NEW EXPERT AND FACTUAL EVIDENCE AS TO THE ORIGIN AND CAUSE OF THE FIRE / 61
I / The fire initiated in the Lamp Room / 61
II / The fire initiated in or was propagated by combustibles in the Store Room / 63
(1) / Catriona Ross / 64
(2) / Fiachra Mulholland / 64
(3) / Tony Gillick / 66
III / Flawed Methodology / 66
IV / Fuel load in West Alcove insufficient to propagate the fire / 67
V / Conclusion / 67
5 / CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 68
6 / APPENDICES / 73
1 / Terms of Reference dated 10th July 2008 / 74
2 / Notice published in the national and local newspapers dated 5th September 2008 seeking submissions from interested parties / 77
3 / Written submissions of the Stardust Victims Committee – “Nothing But the Truth”
Part A (page 82)
Part B (page 177)
Part C (page 332) / 81
4 / Transcripts of the 3 days of the oral evidence furnished on behalf of the Stardust Victims Committee from the 22nd September to the 24th September 2008 / 356
5 / Further written submissions furnished on behalf of the Stardust Victims Committee dated 31st October 2008 / 746
6 / Written submissions of Mr. James O’Toole received on the 2nd September 2008 / 751
7 / Correspondence detailing the materials and documentation furnished to the solicitors for the S.V.C. / 754
8 / Transcript of the Legal Submissions made on behalf of the S.V.C. to the Independent Examination on the 13th October 2008 / 758
9 / Expert Reports considered (31 Reports) / 802
10 / List of CDs and DVD’s of maps and television footage / 1652
11 / Report of the Stardust Victims’ Compensation Tribunal / 1655
12 / Electronic copy of the 122 Days of Evidence before the Tribunal of Mr. Justice Ronan Keane – see attached CD ROM. / 1695
I INTRODUCTION
1.1On the 10th of July 2008 the Government established an Independent Examination of the case for “a renewed inquiry” into the fire at the Stardust, Artane, Dublin on the 14th of February, 1981. At issue is whether there should be a recommendation to Government for a further inquiry.
IIBACKGROUND
1.2In the early hours of the 14th of February, 1981 a catastrophic fire swept through the Stardust Ballroom in Artane, Dublin killing forty eight people and causing serious injury to one hundred and twenty eight others. The overwhelming majority of the victims were in the age group of eighteen to twenty five and came from the neighbouring areas of Artane, Kilmore and Greater Coolock. The scale and horror of the tragedy was such that it was and remains the greatest disaster to have occurred in the history of the State.
1.3On the 20th of February, 1981 the Oireachtas (by resolutions of both Houses) established a Tribunal of Inquiry under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Ronan Keane (“the Tribunal”) to inquire into all aspects of the disaster including the cause of the fire.1,600 statements were taken by An Garda Siochana from persons present in the building on the night of the fire, members of the emergency services and residents in the neighbourhood. The Tribunal was assisted by three assessors, Professor Rasbash of the Department of Fire Safety Engineering in the University of Edinburgh, Gunnar Haurum Chief Inspector of Fire Services in Denmark and Pierce Piggot, Head of Construction Division of An Foras Forbartha. It sat for 122 days and heard evidence from three hundred and sixty three witnesses.
1.4In its Report dated the 30th June 1982 which made findings and recommendations in relation to a very broad range of issues, the Tribunal found, inter alia, that the fire started in the West Alcove of the Ballroom[1] and that the fire was probably started deliberately[2]. The finding that the fire was probably started deliberately has provoked anger and indignation among the survivors and the bereaved who feel aggrieved at the insinuation, whether real or perceived, that the fire was deliberately set by a member of their own community and possibly even by a patron who died or was injured.
1.5The victims have since formed a committee to campaign for a further inquiry(“theCommittee”). Initially the campaign was sustained by the efforts of Ms Geraldine Foy who carried out exhaustive research into all the facts and circumstances of the disaster. In February 2004 she submitted a report to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform the purpose of which was to suggest that the Tribunal had misdirected itself in relation to certain issuesof fact. The Department referred the report for the expert analysis of Mr Michael Norton of the Forensic Science Laboratory who having sought to address the issues raised dismissed the report generally because it did not contain “new evidence”.
1.6The Committee has since gatheredreportsfrom three fire experts Professor Michael Delichatsios (University of Ulster), Mr Tony Gillick and Mr Robin Knox all of whom have expressed the opinion that a more probable cause of the fire was a fire that started in or which involved combustibles in the Store Room(in the roof space) by reason of the fact that it contained a considerably greater fuel load than the West Alcove[3].
1.7The campaign received considerable media and political attention following the broadcast by RTE of a Prime Time documentary in February 2006 which considered the Committee’s case for a new inquiry[4].
1.8In July 2006, the Committee through its solicitors presented to Government a written submission of its case for a further inquiry entitled “Nothing but the Truth”[5].
1.9In response the Government has committed to an open and independent examination of the Committee’s case for a further inquiry and to that end on the 10th of July 2008 it established an Independent Examination with the following terms of reference[6]:
1.Reflecting the Government’s commitment to an open and independent consideration of the Victims Committee’s case for a renewed inquiry the Government has appointed Mr Paul Coffey, S.C. to consider the case for a further inquiry.
2.To this end, Mr Paul Coffey, S.C, the said appointed person, shall:
- consider the “Report of the Tribunal of Inquiry on the Fire at the Stardust, Artane, Dublin on the 14th of February, 1981;
- consider all the issues which are raised by the Stardust Victims Committee, as are summarised in the submission “Nothing But The Truth” and in the supplemental submission to “Nothing But The Truth” (delivered on the 4th of May, 2007), and all the evidence and submissions as may be presented on their behalf as he considers necessary and relevant to the case for a further inquiry.
- In the course of a private examination of the issues,
- meet such people and secure such advice as he considers necessary to ensure complete understanding of the matters and issues.
- facilitate a detailed presentation by the Victims Committee of the case for renewed inquiry as they see it.
- have such regard to as he thinks appropriate to submissions, if any, as may be made by other persons/parties including any Government Departments or Agency or the owners of the Stardust together with any observations on or response thereto from the Stardust Victims Committee.
- carry out such inquiries or investigations that he, in his sole discretion, considers necessary for clarification of the issues raised by the victims of the Stardust Victims Committee, but he shall not initiate any further investigations into the cause of the fire.
3.Following his assessment of the issues raised by the Stardust Victims Committee and related matters, as set out above, Mr Coffey shall, without undue delay, report to the Government and shall therein make a recommendation as to whether a new inquiry should be established and may make such other recommendations as he considers appropriate.
1.10Prior to my appointment, the Government had established a non-statutory examination with identical terms of reference under the chairmanship of John Gallagher S.C. Mr Gallagher withdrew from the process after it was discovered that he had appeared on behalf of An Garda Siochana at the inquest of one of the victims of the disaster. For the avoidance of any doubt, it is necessary for me to state that I have conducted my work de novo and that I have not sought or been given access to any work carried out by my predecessor.
1.11It should be noted that legal representation paid for by the Government has been afforded only to the Committee and to no other potentially interested person or party. In conformity with my terms of reference I have afforded an opportunity to make submissions to all interested personsand parties[7] and facilitated an oral presentation[8] of the Committee’s case.
1.12In order to ensure that the Examination is conducted by reference to all relevant evidence and materials, a very considerable body of documents has been gathered and collated all of which have been made available to the solicitors for the Committee[9].
IIITHE COMMITTEE’S CASE FOR A FURTHER INQUIRY
1.13Although “Nothing But The Truth” discloses a multitude of discrete issues upon which a further inquiry is sought, counsel for the Committee have since narrowed the issues to the following complaints:
(1)that the Tribunal’s finding of fact that the fire was probably caused deliberately is based on hypothesis and not established by evidence and is for that reason inherently unsatisfactory;
(2)that the hypothesis upon which the Tribunal’s finding is based is itself demonstrably flawed because it cannot be reconciled with the known facts of the fire including evidence accepted by the Tribunal;
(3)that new expert and factual evidence establishes as a probability that the fire began in the Lamp Room and spread via the Store Room to the West Alcove;
(4)that the “methodology” used by the Tribunal was flawed insofar as insufficient scrutiny or examination was given to the possibility that the fire originated in the roof space having regard to the very considerable quantity of combustible material that was contained in the Store Room and the fact that the Store Room was effectively in the roof space;
(5)that only the very considerable fuel load in the Store Room could have provided the basis for the rapid development of the fire which engulfed the Stardust within minutes.
IVTHE THRESHOLD TEST
1.14Although my terms of reference require me to follow a prescribed agenda of duties such as facilitating an oral presentation of the Committee’s case, it does not prescribe a legal or any test by which I am to determine whether the case for a further a inquiry has been made out.
1.15The Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts, 1921-2004 do not provide for an appeal or any other mechanism whereby findings of fact can be reviewed and, accordingly, does not provide any guidance.
1.16By contrast, the Railway Safety Act, 2005 and the Merchant Shipping (Investigation of Marine Casualty) Act, 2000 provide for the reopening of inquiries held under the said legislation where the relevant Minister after consultation with the relevant investigation body is satisfied that there is “new evidence available which could materially alter the findings of the Inquiry and that the purpose of the Inquiry would be served by reopening it”.
1.17Similarly the Courts will admit new or fresh evidence both in civil[10] and criminal[11] appeal cases subjectto, inter alia, criteria of credibility and materiality.
1.18As “Nothing ButThe Truth” raises issues which are not based on new factual or expert evidence, the question arises as to whether I am entitled to recommend a further inquiry on a ground that is not sustained by new or fresh evidence.
1.19My terms of reference require me to consider “all the issues” which are raised by the Committee as are summarised in the submission “Nothing but the Truth” and in the supplemental submission thereto together with “all the evidence and submissions” as may be presented on their behalf. As not all of the issues so raised are based on new evidence, it must follow that I am entitled to assess the case not merely by reference to new evidence but also by reference to any other issues raised which disclose that a further inquiryshould be established.
1.20Where I am required to assess the issue of the credibility of any evidence which is contended to be “new”, I take the view (by analogy with the jurisprudenceof the Courts in respect of the admission of new or fresh evidence) that the credibility of such evidence is to be assessed by reference to the other evidence given to the Tribunal and not in isolation.
1.21As I have no power to find facts and having regardto the fact that not all potentially interested persons and parties have taken part in this Examination, it is appropriate and fair that where necessary to do so I determine all issues on a provisionalbasis onlyby reference to whether the Committee has established a prima facie case.
1.22It would be less than human not to feel an almost overriding sympathy for the victims, however, I must approach my task clinically with due regard not only for their concerns but also with due regard to the public interest.
2A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE GIVEN TO THE TRIBUNAL AS TO THE ORIGIN AND CAUSE OF THE FIRE
2.1Inorder to understand and appreciate the Committee’s case for a new inquiry it is necessary to understand the relevant features and layout of the Ballroom and the course of the fire on the night of the disaster.
ITHE BALLROOM
2.2In 1981 the Stardust complex was owned by three different companies which were beneficially owned and controlled by the Butterly family. In 1978 the owners converted the southern portion of what had been Scott’s jam factory in the Kylemore Industrial Estate, Artane, Dublin into a so-called “amenity centre” which comprised the Stardust Ballroom (which was used for cabaret and disco), the Lantern Room (which was used for functions) and the Silver Swan (a public house)[12].
2.3The internal layout of the Stardust Ballroom is shown by the Ground floor Plan and Axonometric planoverleaf[13]:
GROUND FLOOR PLAN OF BALLROOM – Scale 1:200
2.4As can be seen from the said plans, the main entrance to the Ballroom (Exit 2) was on the south of the building through a double swing door which led to a foyer where beyond a cash office and cloakroom (on the right) there was another double swing door which gave on to the main floor of the Ballroom.
2.5The main area of the Ballroom was divided into two banked seating areas or alcoves known as the West Alcove and the North Alcove between which in the northwest corner there was a dispense bar (“the Main Bar”) and to the front of which there was a level floor area part of which was covered by seating and part of it which was reserved for dancing.
(1)THE WEST ALCOVE
2.6 The West Alcove provided seating for two hundred and eighty patrons. The seating was arranged in 5 vertical rows (Rows A-E, Row A being beside the Main Bar), each row comprising 9 horizontal tiers and each tier comprising 15 benches arranged in threes with a 2.5mm length table in front of each three bench assembly. The Alcove was approximately 70.5m in length and 10m in depth with masonry walls on each of the 3 sides and 5 roller blinds to the front of each row behind which the alcove could be partitioned off from the rest of the Ballroom.
2.7 The seats and tables were fixed and immovable. The seats were constructed from tubular steel and steel angled frames with 188mm chipboard base and back. The base and the back were padded with 50mm urethane foam and covered in PVC coated fabric. The base was hinged at the back to allow it to tip up to provide walking space in front. The base and the back were separated by an air gap nearly 50mm wide. The tables in front of the seats consisted of steel frame work and 30mm chipboard board covered on top and the edges by laminated plastic attached by glue[14].
2.8The 3 masonry walls of the West Alcove from floor to ceiling were covered with highly combustible 100% polyester fibre tiles squares known as “Stateroom” 500mm by 500mm attached to the walls by means of synthetic adhesive[15].