Originally Posted by
_Agrajag_
I wonder why some inquests are held with a jury and most are not? The only one I've ever been to had a jury, although I wasn't convinced that their input was that useful. They were directed by the coroner as to the most likely verdict, so clearly that I rather think most of them took it as an instruction. They were only out for a very short time before coming back and delivering the verdict the coroner had pretty much told them to return (accidental death).
The Coroners' Service says 'A Coroner will hold an Inquest with a Jury in certain circumstances such as when someone dies in prison or police custody or other state detention such as an immigration detention centre'. This differs significantly from other individual local Coroners' websites which add (e.g.) 'or in circumstances which may affect public health or safety'.
The former definition might explain the current case, but the latter would make it seem a candidate for a jury. Very confusing, but at the end of the day the bereaved rely on the integrity of individual Coroners. Sadly lacking in many of the cases discussed here (recent Hawks, Sea King ASaC), highly commendable in others (Hercules, Nimrod).
At the most recent one I attended, the Coroner had a WTF moment when the GP's report was read out, saying 'this 87-year old a woman...', and it was pointed out to her that the birth and marriage certificates said she was 57. She carried on, but in her decision said the GP's surgery was 'grossly incompetent' and had failed in its duty of care, prescribing the wrong medication. The GP involved quietly retired a few months later. If you want justice, might I suggest popping your clogs in Avon & Somerset.