STARDUST MANAGER EAMON Butterly has accepted that, months before the fatal 1981 fire, he was told “in no uncertain terms” that locks and chains on his premises were completely unacceptable when patrons were there.

The inquest jury also heard today a witness will give evidence that he declined to quote for fire insurance on the Stardust because “he considered the fire risk pretty horrendous”.

Butterly also told the inquest that he stands over his company’s malicious damage claim on the Stardust fire, while he denied that he was involved in an alleged threatening of witnesses by staff of the nightclub at the original tribunal in 1981.

Butterly was in his seventh day on the witness stand at the Dublin District Coroner’s Court, which is hearing the inquest into the fire that killed 48 people at the Artane nightclub in the early hours of 14 February 1981.

Brenda Campbell KC, representing a number of the families of the victims, referenced the statement of a schoolteacher named William Bassett who was having a drink in the Silver Swan bar section of the Stardust in August 1980, where he observed that the emergency exit door was locked and chained.

“It should be immediately obvious to you that if you’re drinking in premises, the emergency exit doors should not be locked and chained,” said Campbell.

“Exactly. If he saw that, he should have gone up to the manager,” said Butterly.

Campbell said that on 4 September that year, Martin Donoghue, an electrical inspector with Dublin Corporation, found the exit door in the Silver Swan locked and chained.

Campbell said that in Donoghue’s statement, he had said he reported this defect to Butterly and said that Butterly told him he did not realise the door had to be unlocked at all times.

“You had been told in no uncertain terms that locks and chains on your premises were completely unacceptable when patrons were there,” said Campbell.

“I accept that,” said Butterly.

“Did you tell your staff that under no circumstances are locks and chains to be on those doors?” asked Campbell.

“Yes; I can’t remember telling them, but if I told Mr Donoghue I would tell them, I did tell them,” replied Butterly.

Campbell said that Donoghue returned to the Stardust in November 1980 and found that exit five was chained and locked. He brought this to the notice of the person in charge of security, Tom Kennan, and insisted that the chain be removed. Kennan did this and put a man on the door.

“Why does your head doorman have to be persuaded to take the lock and chain off the door?” asked Campbell.

“You’d have to ask him,” said Butterly.

Campbell put it that on the night of the fire, Butterly saw the fire “and within a remarkably short time you made good your escape”. Campbell said that all witness statements indicated that very few people saw Butterly in the Stardust.

“It was dark,” he replied.

Campbell referenced the statement of doorman Gabriel O’Neill, who told gardaí he went to exit five on the night of the fire and found it locked, so he tried hard to open it but couldn’t and had to go out exit four.

She said he gave evidence that exit four was obstructed by chairs and he and the patrons fell over the chairs. He said that when he got outside, Butterly arrived at exit five, which was still locked.

“That’s not correct,” replied Butterly, going on to say that Tom Kennan had told him that all the exits were open on the night.

Campbell said that O’Neill had told gardaí that he saw Butterly and deputy head doorman Leo Doyle open exit five from the outside.

“How could you open it from the outside with keys? That’s ridiculous,” said Butterly.

Campbell said that Butterly had told the gardaí that he had personally employed PJ Murphy as a doorman three or four weeks before the fire, and the jury had been told that Murphy visited another doorman Michael Kavanagh and “issued very firm instructions” as to what Kavanagh should tell gardaí during the investigation into the fire.

Campbell asked Butterly why Murphy was calling other doormen like this.

“I have no idea whatsoever what he was up to,” replied Butterly.

Butterly went on to deny an assertion by Campbell that he had been involved in a discussion that the doormen were to give consistent accounts of what happened on the night of the fire.

Campbell referenced the statement of Linda Bishop, who she said had given a harrowing account of being trapped trying to get out of exit two on the night.

Campbell said that Bishop had also made a statement saying that members of the Stardust staff approached her during the original tribunal in 1981 saying that she had “hung them” with her evidence. Campbell said that Bishop suggested that staff had threatened her and indicated they would get back at the patrons in their evidence.

Counsel asked Butterly if this was all done without his knowledge.

“That never happened, I never told anyone to say anything,” replied Butterly.

Earlier in the day, Butterly told Seán Guerin SC, representing a number of the families of the victims, that he did not know that the recommended trunking capacity had been exceeded on electrical wiring in certain areas of the Stardust, which meant that the electrical system was overloaded.

Guerin referenced the evidence of witnesses Suzanne McCluskey and Fiona Doherty, who attended a concert in the Stardust around a month before the fire. Guerin said both women reported seeing sparks flashing from the ceiling, with Doherty saying that the sparks reminded her of “the sparks from bumper cars”.

“Nobody told me,” said Butterly, going on to say: “I wouldn’t expect to see sparks.”

Guerin next referenced the statement of Patrick O’Driscoll, who gave evidence that he was playing in the Stardust the week before the fire and saw “a shower of sparks” coming from the ceiling at the backstage area.

“I don’t necessarily believe what he said,” said Butterly. “If he saw sparks, he should have told somebody.”

Guerin next referenced the statement of Declan Burnett, who gave evidence that one night a few months before the fire, he was working in the bar and saw “a light smoke or mist” all over the area that was curtained off on the night of the fire.

Burnett also gave evidence that on a few occasions, he got an unusual smell in the bar that he could not define but thought it came from the air vents.

Butterly replied that he was not aware of this.

“The company had an important financial interest in proving that the damage was caused maliciously, and you’re anxious to stand over that finding,” said Guerin.

“The finding of the malicious damage claim? That it was given? Yes,” replied Butterly.

“That it was right, that’s your position and it always has been,” said Guerin.

“Yes, that’s what our solicitors told us to do,” replied Butterly.

“That’s why you asserted it was the best wired premises in Dublin,” said Guerin.

“Yes. I’m no expert,” replied Butterly.

“You’re willing to say things you don’t know to be true because you’re persisting in standing over the company’s financial interest in a malicious cause for the fire,” said Guerin.

“I am standing over the company’s malicious damage claim to a fire,” replied Butterly.

Guerin asked him if he had ever had any trouble getting fire insurance, to which Butterly replied: “We never had any trouble getting insurance for anything.”

Guerin said the jury would hear evidence of a Richard Williams, who worked with an insurance company and said that around 1979 he was asked to quote for fire insurance on the Stardust but declined to do so.

Butterly said he was not aware of this.

Guerin said that Williams went out to survey the Stardust in 1981 and he turned down the request to quote for insurance on it because “he considered the fire risk pretty horrendous”.

“First I heard of that,” said Butterly.

Guerin said that one of the things Williams pointed to was the use of polyurethane foam insulation, which was considered highly combustible. He said this would be an obvious fire risk that Butterly would have been concerned about, had he been aware at the time.

“If I’d heard of it, yeah,” replied Butterly.

Guerin said it was “an obvious potential cause of fire,” to which Butterly replied: “Obviously.”

Butterly’s evidence continues tomorrow.