STARDUST MANAGER EAMON Butterly has told an inquest that the locking and unlocking of exit doors at the nightclub was his joint policy with door staff.

Butterly said the policy was the head doorman’s initiative and could not say how much of the policy he was “willing to own”.

He accepted that the evidence he has now given to the Dublin District Coroner’s Court is “contradictory” to evidence he gave to an original tribunal into the fatal fire that killed 48 people.

Butterly was being cross-examined today by Michael O’Higgins SC, at the inquest into the blaze that swept through the Stardust in the early hours of 14 February 1981.

The jury has already heard that Butterly told gardaí that the practice of draping padlocked chains over the panic bars of exit doors in the nightclub “originated from the doormen” and was not something he ordered them to do.

O’Higgins, representing a number of the families of the victims, said there was a conflict between what Butterly originally told the gardaí and what he had told the jury in this inquest.

He said that Butterly had told gardaí that most doormen had no responsibility for checking if the doors were unlocked, and this responsibility was placed on the head doorman.

O’Higgins said that Butterly told gardaí that the policy of unlocking certain doors at approximately 11.30pm on disco nights was “forced on me by the fact that a large number of people were getting in for free due to the actions of their friends who were opening exit doors from the inside”.

O’Higgins said that Butterly had told gardaí that “the policy of not opening exit doors five, six and one until approximately 11.30pm was decided on”.

“The policy of doormen circulating the premises after they had finished their duties on the main door was another result of discussions between (head doorman) Tom Kennan, the other doormen and myself,” counsel said Butterly had said.

“Does that say in very bald terms this was your policy?” asked O’Higgins.

“It was saying that I agreed with what they said,” replied Butterly.

“Was it your policy?” asked O’Higgins.

“It was the policy of the security staff and me,” replied Butterly.

“Is that a shift from what you told the jury last Thursday, when you said this was all Mr Kennan’s initiative?” asked O’Higgins.

“It was Mr Kennan’s initiative,” replied Butterly.

“How much of this policy are you willing to own?”

“I can’t say,” replied Butterly.

Again referring to the original statements, O’Higgins said that Butterly had been asked who made the decision to keep the doors locked as people were getting in for free, to which Butterly had said: “I made the decision myself.”

“You’re owning it 100% there, aren’t you?” asked O’Higgins.

“I am, yeah,” replied Butterly.

O’Higgins said that at the original tribunal in 1981, Butterly had “owned the decision 100%,” and he asked why the witness was now telling the inquest jury the exact opposite.

“I made the decision with Mr Kennan and (deputy head doorman) Mr Doyle,” said Butterly.

O’Higgins asked him if he believed that the evidence he had given the tribunal and evidence he had given the inquest was the same, to which Butterly replied: “I’ve given the evidence to the best of my ability.”

Coroner Dr Myra Cullinane said that the evidence which was heard last week and evidence heard from 1981 was different, and she asked Butterly which evidence he now stood over.

“The ones I made here,” replied Butterly.

“In 1981, the decision was made between the three of us, so I went along with Mr Kennan. That’s what I believed last Thursday,” he said, adding: “It is contradictory all right, yeah.”

Butterly gave evidence that the practice of locking certain exit doors at the nightclub for a portion of the evening was only introduced about three weeks before the fire, but the practice of “mock locking” doors by draping chains over panic bars to give the impression the doors were locked had been going on a long time.

O’Higgins said that in his original evidence in 1981, Butterly was asked about this practice and in response, Butterly had said: “This practice originated with the doormen. It was only in operation two to three weeks prior to 13 February.”

O’Higgins said that all this was in reference to “mock locked doors”.

“I thought you were talking about locked doors,” replied Butterly.

“I suggest that when hard questions are asked, on occasion you try to muddy the waters,” said O’Higgins.

“No, I don’t, I do my best,” replied Butterly.

O’Higgins said that at the original tribunal in 1981, Butterly had given evidence that he had never tried to operate a door when the padlock and chain were draped around the panic bar. O’Higgins said that every doorman who had given evidence had said they had not checked whether the door would open.

“That’s not good, is it?” asked O’Higgins.

“No,” replied Butterly.

O’Higgins put it to Butterly that he had described Kennan as a very honourable person, to which Butterly agreed.

O’Higgins referred to a statement made by Kennan about a system in place to delay an inspector coming in to have a look at the Stardust, so that doors could be unlocked while the inspector was delayed at the front of the premises.

O’Higgins said that Kennan told the tribunal in 1981: “On one occasion there was an agreement that if the doors were not opened earlier, there was an arrangement to talk to (the inspector) while they were opened.”

O’Higgins said that Kennan was asked whether this meant stalling the inspector, to which Kennan replied: “Yes.”

O’Higgins said Kennan told the tribunal that this took place maybe four or five weeks before the fire.

“If this policy was only in place for two or three weeks, why was there this necessity to stall inspectors five weeks before the fire?” asked O’Higgins.

“I don’t know why he said that,” replied Butterly.

O’Higgins said that Kennan had given evidence that no one had actually come to the premises and this arrangement was hypothetical. O’Higgins said that when this was put to Butterly during the tribunal, Butterly said he knew nothing about it.

“What would you think of your head of security behaving in that way?” asked O’Higgins.

“I wouldn’t agree with it, but I wouldn’t believe that he would,” replied Butterly.

“This honourable, trustworthy man was engaging in all this activity on your watch, and you knew nothing about it?” said O’Higgins.

“I didn’t know anything about that, but he was still, as far as I’m concerned, an honourable and trustworthy man, but I didn’t know about that. I never concealed anything from the authorities,” said Butterly.

Butterly’s evidence continues tomorrow.