STARDUST MANAGER EAMON Butterly has denied telling a security warden that exit doors in the nightclub were locked during a concert over two years before the fatal fire, an inquest has heard.
The jury at the Dublin District Coroner’s Court also heard evidence today that the security warden discarded a cigarette butt into an outdoors pile of what he believed to be the same materials as used in the ceiling and walls of the Stardust “and within seconds the materials were completely ablaze”.
Butterly was continuing his evidence in the Pillar Room of the Rotunda Hospital at the inquest into the blaze that killed 48 people when it swept through the Stardust nightclub in the early hours of 14 February 1981.
Michael O’Higgins SC, representing a number of the families of the victims, referenced a statement made by the security warden who worked in the Stardust in 1978. The warden said that he was on duty in October or November of that year, and he was outside the complex waiting for Butterly to arrive.
“Before he arrived, I threw a cigarette butt into a small heap of rubbish. The rubbish heap was leftovers of the ceiling and wall materials used in the Stardust disco section. The materials were dark and cloth-looking tile and cream coloured aeroboard tiles,” said the warden.
O’Higgins asked Butterly if the tiles in the Stardust ceiling were aeroboard, to which Butterly replied that they were not.
O’Higgins continued reading from the statement, in which the security warden said: “I had walked away about ten feet or so from where the rubbish heap was, and when I threw the cigarette end, I looked away, and the rubbish heap was completely ablaze.”
O’Higgins said the warden told Butterly when he arrived what had happened and that “within seconds the materials were completely ablaze”.
“He said that was nothing for me to be bothered about,” the warden said.
O’Higgins asked Butterly if he had any memory of this, to which Butterly replied: “None whatsoever.”
O’Higgins went on to say that the warden had given evidence that on the night of a concert, Butterly said: “Make sure nobody gets in through the fire escape doors; they are locked anyway, but just make sure.”
“I didn’t say that to anyone,” said Butterly.
O’Higgins said that the warden said he checked exit doors from the outside and they were all locked, and he could hear the chains banging against the doors as he pulled them. The warden said that after the concert at 2am, he checked the doors from the inside and all chains were on the doors in the locked position.
“I have no memory of that night. I wouldn’t say that,” said Butterly.
O’Higgins asked him about the regulations for places of public resort, which state that exit doors shall only be secured by automatic fastenings when patrons are on the premises.
O’Higgins said that the guidelines, which are part of the criminal code, also stated that for any chains and padlocks used for securing exit doors when the public are not on the premises, a board has to be provided for the chains and padlocks to be hung up.
O’Higgins said that Harold Gardner, who was employed by Butterly in the role of architect, had given Butterly the booklet containing these guidelines, “but horse to water, you never actually read it.”
“I don’t remember having it,” said Butterly.
O’Higgins further referenced the guidelines that stated that bars or wire guards should not be fitted to windows, but Butterly had steel plates welded to toilet windows in the Stardust. O’Higgins said that Butterly had not been aware of the regulations because he had not read them.
“These regulations were posted on the wall in the Stardust,” said O’Higgins.
“I don’t know,” replied Butterly.
O’Higgins next referenced a statement made by a garda who used to be a customer in the Silver Swan bar section of the Stardust complex. The garda said that in July 1980, he noticed there was a chain through both release bars on the exit doors secured with a padlock, so he spoke to a senior barman about it.
The garda said that the chain and padlock were still on the doors on a number of occasions weeks apart thereafter. The garda said that a manager on the premises stated that he had to keep the doors locked to prevent customers from letting in barred persons through the emergency exits.
“I never heard of this before,” said Butterly.
Earlier today, Butterly gave evidence that he did not find out what surface spread of flame rating meant before carpet tiles were used on the walls of the nightclub.
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.
O’Higgins referred to a letter written to the original architect of the Stardust outlining a requirement of Dublin Corporation’s chief fire officer that all internal wall and ceiling linings have a minimum Class 1 surface spread of flame rating.
“The conditions actually specified that before a sod of soil was turned, you had to sit down with the chief fire officer,” said O’Higgins.
“The applicant of the planning permission had to, my father,” replied Butterly.
“It was a family business and you were a person who was supervising the building of these premises,” said O’Higgins, going on to say that Butterly did not sit down with the chief fire officer before building commenced.
O’Higgins said that the original architect gave a statement saying he was engaged by Butterly’s father and applications were made until finally permission was granted in October 1976.
Subsequently, the architect said that when they failed to reach agreement on his fees, he parted company with Butterly’s father. Subsequently, Harold Gardner replaced the original architect.
“I take it you knew Mr Gardner did not have any professional education in the sense of any degree?” asked O’Higgins.
“As far as I was concerned about Mr Gardner, he was quite capable of doing the job,” said Butterly.
Concerning the carpet tiles placed on the walls of the Stardust, O’Higgins referred to original statements made by Butterly concerning planning conditions about the surface spread of flame in which he said: “I did not know what Class 1 surface spread of flame rating meant.”
“Why didn’t you find out what surface spread of flame meant?” asked O’Higgins.
“I expected that if the Dublin Corporation were happy for us to put them up on the walls, I’d be happy,” replied O’Higgins.
Butterly’s evidence continues tomorrow.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
have your say