Inquest Verdict On 19 Deaths In Volcanic Eruption

Inquest Finds 19 Who Died Ignored Dangers, But Also Suggests Why

By Staff Correspondent

The 19 persons killed by the volcano’s most tragic event on June 25, 1997, were victims of a single fate, according to the recently concluded Coroner’s Inquest. They differed only in their reasons for being where they died.

While the jurors found all 19 deaths were "caused by the natural catastrophe," they pointed the finger of responsibility at both Her Majesty’s Government and the Government of Montserrat in at least some of the them.

In London, the Foreign Office promptly disclaimed any responsibility of Her Majesty’s Government in the deaths. In a statement reported by the BBC, it said, "On May 23, the farmers were told to stop farming in the area nearest the volcano. It is inconceivable that they were not aware of the dangers."

Neither the jurors nor the Coroner suggested otherwise.

Nine of the victims were farmers or farm workers, seeing to the livestock or crops that provided their livelihood. Eight were residents, some of whom had never left their homes, others who had gone back. Among them were a young mother and her infant son who had just returned from Antigua and were at their home in Farms. The remaining two were airport workers, both in Farms. (See list of victims below)

The inquest, at which Senior Magistrate Rhys Burriss presided as Coroner, spanned nearly two months. It began Nov. 4, 1998, and ended with the issuance of the jurors’ conclusions on Dec. 31.

The five jurors found that all 19 died shortly after 1 p.m. on that day from "neurogenic shock resulting from total body burns" suffered "in the sudden surge / eruption of pyroclastic flow from which (they) could not escape."

All were in the Exclusion Zone, the jurors acknowledged, "despite the widespread knowledge that it was unsafe." Their conclusions did not end there, however. In the case of the farmers, the jurors observed that their presence was "against the background that farmers were informally designated as ‘essential workers’ and allowed into the Exclusion Zone from time to time."

The jury pointed to a number of contributory causes and issued a separate critical statement of riders on Public Shelters and Mass Information. (See Jury’s Riders and Coroner’s Statement below)

In the case of the farmers and farm workers, the jury said, that contributory cause "was the failure of the authorities, both local and British, to provide alternative lands in the safe area for farmers displaced from the Exclusion Zone."

The jury said of one farmer who had returned to live in the Exclusion Zone, "The conditions in the public shelters were so deplorable that (he) refused to return to them after his initial experience."

In the deaths of the mother and her infant son, the jury concluded, "The evidence satisfies us that there was no physical barrier between the airport road and the road leading to Farms to discourage entry into the Farms area."

Finally, in the case of the two airport workers, the jury said, "The evidence satisfies us that the contributory cause of death was the continued operation of the airport despite the elevated volcanic activity in the days immediately preceding the 25^th June 1997."

Contributory causes were omitted only in the cases of people who had never moved from their homes in the Exclusion Zone.

Jurors were John Allen, Jim Bass, Denzil Edgecombe, Maureen Hodd and Clifton Riley.

Jury’s Riders and Coroner’s Statement

After rendering individual conclusions on the 19 deaths, each of which the jurors and the Coroner signed, the jury added two Riders to their verdicts, on Public Shelters and Mass Information. These were acknowledged by Coroner Rhys Burriss in his own critical statement. The jury’s Riders and portions of the Coroner’s Statement follow:

Public Shelters

The evidence has proved to our satisfaction that after many of the people from the exclusion areas had experienced or observed the persistently deplorable conditions within the public shelters they refused to live in these places. Overcrowding, lack of privacy, poor sanitation, rowdy conduct by some individuals, exposure of children of impressionable age to crude and distasteful behaviour, possibilities for child abuse, the inability to properly care for sick and disabled members etc. were the reasons why many persons preferred to stay in their homes within the exclusion areas and risk the dangers of volcanic eruption rather than live in a public shelter.

"It is clear from the evidence presented that the necessary response to improve the conditions in the public shelters was ‘too little, too late, and behind the crisis.’ Thus, Her Majesty’s Government should have acted in a more positive manner to relieve this distressing situation. We believe it remains a matter of utmost urgency for the housing needs of the many who remain on-Island and who wish to return to at least be responded to with imagination and generosity. Only HMG possesses the resources to do this. We have been shown a draft of the Coroner’s intended remarks and we wish unanimously to endorse them as expressing the Jury’s views on this issue."

Mass Information

"Looking towards the future, it would appear that the process of public information could have been more comprehensive and therefore more effective in counteracting the extremely strong motives people had to enter or remain in the evacuated areas.

The motivating factors were clearly established by the evidence:

"1. People returned to their homes to avoid deplorable shelter conditions;

"2. Farmers continued to work their land and care for their animals although they were told of the dangers of volcanic eruption."

After acknowledging the Jury’s recommendations, which he said he would forward, the first to Her Majesty’s Government and the second to the Government of Montserrat, "respectfully hoping that HMG may find them of assistance," he added:

"It is worth remembering that just as Her Majesty is ‘Queen of the United Kingdom and Colonies,’ so also Her Majesty’s Prime Minister is the leader of the Government which has bottom line responsibility for Montserrat's welfare.
"Montserrat has many needs consequent upon the volcanic crisis but none is more pressing than that for many acres of land to be acquired in the North for permanent housing and for houses to be built on that land, whether by the public authorities themselves or by private individuals assisted by affordable financial arrangements. This has been obvious since at least the autumn of 1996. Some efforts have been made in this direction but one has only to count the months since the crisis began – over 40 – and note the fact that there are still approaching 400 people in the shelters, as well as hundreds more in overcrowded shared accommodation, and yet more in voluntary exile overseas, to see that the British Government response has been unimaginative, grudging and tardy. It still is simply inadequate to the scale of the need. I suspect that he were here the Prime Minister might find useful one of his favourite adjectives: ‘pathetic,’ to sum it all up. I hope that he will now take personal charge and instruct his officials that the necessary funds must at last be provided to enable sufficient land to be acquired for adequate and decent housing to be constructed."