THE JURY AT the Stardust inquests has sought further legal guidance on the seventh day of their deliberations into the cause of death of the 48 victims of the fire.

The jury in the Dublin District Coroner’s Court today asked a question concerning the general questionnaire they were provided with at the beginning of their deliberations.

They requested advice from Coroner Dr Myra Cullinane as to whether a particular answer they give on this questionnaire would imply a failure on the part of someone, notwithstanding the fact that they are aware that they cannot attach blame to any individual.

Dr Cullinane informed them that she would address this question when the court resumes tomorrow morning, on what will be their eighth day of deliberations into the circumstances of the deaths that occurred when fire consumed the Stardust nightclub in Artane on 14 February 1981.

Earlier in the day, the jury was reminded that they cannot attach any wrongdoing to any identified person during these inquests, when Dr Cullinane answered questions they had asked during the previous day’s proceedings.

Their first question was in reference to the standards that existed at the time of the fire in 1981, and the jury asked if the coroner could provide clarification on the approach or interpretation of what is to be understood by the word “standard”.

The jury asked if “standards” are to be understood as the norms and behaviour at the time of the fire or to be understood as codified laws, byelaws or regulations.

Dr Cullinane confirmed that concerning any understanding of the definition of the standards of the time, the jury must have regard to the laws, byelaws and regulations that were in place at the time of the fire.

“If you are considering matters where in fact there were no standards in place at the time of the fire, you can move to consider the norms and behaviours, but you must ask yourself in so doing, was that behaviour the approved practice at the time or did that behaviour have obvious inherent risks,” said Dr Cullinane.

The other questions asked by the jury related to the general questionnaire they were furnished with. The coroner addressed these queries, reminding the jury that concerning this questionnaire, it is their role to answer factual questions.

“You are not permitted in law to attach failure or breach of any law or wrongdoing to any person identified or identifiable,” she said, going on to explain that the questionnaire was designed to comply with the law in that regard.

She told the jury to look at the general questionnaire and answer the questions, and then they must consider the separate issue of a verdict and whether or not the answers they have provided fulfil the legal tests that apply to the various verdicts.

Before beginning their deliberations, the jury was told that the verdicts they can return are accidental death, death by misadventure, an open verdict, a narrative verdict and unlawful killing.

They were informed that the unlawful killing verdict is markedly different from the other four and if the jury were to return this verdict, they would have formed the view that the law had been broken in a serious fashion.

They were told that the standard of proof for this verdict is beyond reasonable doubt, while the standard for the other verdicts is the balance of probabilities.

The jury will continue their deliberations tomorrow in the Pillar Room of the Rotunda Hospital.