Originally Posted by
Thoughtful_Flyer
The coroner can direct the jury that certain verdicts are not appropriate in law, for the case before them, so cannot be used. Sometimes that can mean that only one verdict can reasonably be reached in which case it is not far short of a direction. However, if more than one verdict could reasonably be reached for a particular case, then jury should certainly not be steered as to which of those to return.
It is different from a criminal case where the judge can decide that the evidence on a particular charge is so weak that no reasonable jury could consider convicting. In that case he or she can direct the jury to acquit. What the judge can never do is direct the jury to convict!
That is pretty much what happened. After several days of evidence, including two whole days from the AAIB alone, the Coroner ruled out all other options other than accidental death. He was right to do so, in my view, although the disparity between the AAIB evidence given in their report and the very different evidence presented in court caused me to feel slightly uncomfortable at the time. I assume this comes down to the Coroner only being concerned with whether that evidence materially changed the verdict, which I am sure it didn't.