Reporting on Inquests in the UK: A Practical Guide for Journalists

Coroner's Court Basics

The coroner's court is an inquisitorial — not adversarial — proceeding. This distinction is critical for journalists to understand:

• Purpose: An inquest answers four questions: who the deceased was, and how, when, and where they came by their death. It does not determine criminal or civil liability — no one is “on trial” at an inquest.
• The coroner's role: The coroner is both judge and investigator. They decide which witnesses to call, what evidence to hear, and what conclusion to reach. Coroners are independent judicial officers, usually qualified lawyers or doctors (often both).
• When inquests are held: A coroner must hold an inquest where there is reasonable cause to suspect the death was violent, unnatural, or of unknown cause, or where the person died in state detention (prison, police custody, immigration detention, or compulsory psychiatric care).
• Open court: Inquests are held in open court and journalists have the right to attend. Unlike some other courts, you do not need specific accreditation — your press card is helpful but not legally required for access.
• Timing: Inquests can take place months or even years after the death, particularly where there are ongoing criminal investigations, public inquiries, or complex medical evidence to gather.

Reporting Restrictions at Inquests

The reporting framework for inquests differs from criminal courts in several important ways. Understanding these restrictions is essential for avoiding contempt of court:

• Contempt of Court Act 1981: The strict liability rule applies to inquests just as it does to criminal proceedings. Once an inquest is “active” (from the moment the coroner decides to hold it), publications that create a substantial risk of serious prejudice may constitute contempt. However, since inquests have no jury in most cases, the risk is lower than in criminal trials.
• Section 11 orders: Coroners can make orders under the Contempt of Court Act prohibiting the publication of names or other identifying information. These are rare but may be used to protect the identity of vulnerable witnesses or children.
• Section 45A Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999: Coroners can impose reporting restrictions to protect the identity of witnesses under 18. If a child gives evidence at an inquest, check whether any restrictions are in place before publishing identifying details.
• Regulation 28 reports: Prevention of Future Deaths reports (see below) are public documents and can be reported freely. They are often the most newsworthy output of an inquest.

Prevention of Future Deaths (PFD) Reports

Under Regulation 28 of the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013, a coroner who believes that action should be taken to prevent future deaths must write a “Prevention of Future Deaths” report. These are among the most valuable documents for journalists:

• Legal obligation to respond: The person or organisation receiving a PFD report must respond within 56 days, setting out what actions they have taken or propose to take. Both the report and the response are sent to the Lord Chancellor and are published on the Judiciary website.
• Story mining: PFD reports are a goldmine for investigative journalists. They identify specific, named systemic failures that contributed to a death. Searching the PFD database by organisation, category, or keyword can reveal patterns — for example, repeated failures by a particular NHS trust or recurring safety issues in a specific industry.
• Follow-up: Many PFD responses promise action that is never taken. Following up on responses months or years later to check whether promised changes were implemented is an excellent investigative technique.
• Local angles: PFD reports are issued by coroners across England and Wales and frequently relate to local institutions. They are an underused source of local journalism stories.

Interested Persons

“Interested Persons” (IPs) are those with a recognised legal standing at an inquest. Understanding who the IPs are helps you navigate the courtroom and identify potential sources:

• Who qualifies: The deceased's spouse or partner, parents, children, and anyone who the coroner considers has a sufficient interest. In practice, this often includes the employer (in workplace deaths), the hospital or NHS trust (in medical deaths), the police force (in custody deaths), and insurers.
• Rights of IPs: Interested Persons can examine witnesses, make submissions, and receive disclosure of documents. They are often legally represented, and their barristers' questioning can be the most revealing part of an inquest.
• Families as sources: Bereaved families are often the most powerful voices in inquest reporting. Approach them with sensitivity and respect. The charity INQUEST provides support to bereaved families and can sometimes facilitate introductions. Always respect a family's wishes if they do not want media contact.

Jury Inquests and Article 2 Inquests

Two types of enhanced inquest carry particular significance for journalists:

• Jury inquests: A jury of seven to eleven members must be summoned in certain circumstances: deaths in state custody, deaths resulting from the actions of a police officer on duty, deaths caused by notifiable accidents at work, and deaths where the coroner considers there is sufficient reason. The jury, not the coroner, determines the conclusion. Jury inquests are longer, more formal, and attract greater public and media interest.
• Article 2 inquests: Where Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to life) is engaged — typically in deaths involving state agents or in state custody — the inquest must satisfy a “heightened scrutiny” standard. The scope of the inquest is wider: rather than simply determining how the person died, it must examine the broader circumstances, including whether the state fulfilled its obligation to protect life.
• Narrative conclusions: In Article 2 inquests, the jury (or coroner) often returns a “narrative conclusion” rather than a short-form verdict. These can run to several pages and set out detailed findings about what went wrong. They are highly quotable and often form the basis of front-page stories.

Practical Courtroom Tips

Coroners' courts have their own conventions that differ from other courts. Preparation makes a significant difference to your reporting:

• Introduce yourself: Arrive early and introduce yourself to the coroner's officer (their court clerk). Let them know you are press. They can often provide background information and a running order of witnesses.
• Note-taking: You are permitted to take written notes in the coroner's court. Live text-based reporting (tweeting, live blogging) is generally permitted but check with the coroner — some have specific guidance. Audio and video recording require the coroner's permission.
• Accessing documents: Witness statements, expert reports, and post-mortem reports are not automatically available to the press. You can ask the coroner for access, citing the principle of open justice, but they have discretion. Some coroners are more forthcoming than others.
• Conclusions (not verdicts): Since 2019, the correct terminology is “conclusion” rather than “verdict.” Available short-form conclusions include: natural causes, accident/misadventure, suicide, unlawful killing, lawful killing, industrial disease, drug/alcohol related, and open. Using the wrong terminology marks you out as inexperienced.
• Pre-inquest review hearings: Complex inquests often have preliminary hearings (PIRs) where the coroner sets the scope, timetable, and any reporting restrictions. Attending PIRs gives you advance notice of what the inquest will cover and any legal arguments about scope.

Using the PFD Database for Investigative Journalism

The Prevention of Future Deaths database on the Judiciary website is one of the most underused investigative resources in British journalism. Here is how to mine it systematically:

• Category searching: The database is categorised by type of death (hospital, care home, custody, workplace, road traffic, suicide, etc.) and by the organisation named in the report. Searching by NHS trust, police force, prison, or employer reveals whether an organisation has received multiple PFD reports — a pattern that is far more newsworthy than any single report.
• Response quality analysis: Download and compare the responses that organisations submit within their 56-day deadline. Some responses are detailed, specific, and action-oriented. Others are vague, evasive, or simply promise further review. The quality of the response tells you something important about whether the organisation takes its responsibilities seriously.
• Follow-up investigations: The most powerful PFD-based journalism involves returning to an organisation months or years later to check whether the promised changes were actually made. Submit FOI requests to NHS trusts, care homes, and prisons for evidence that specific actions were taken. Where they were not, you have a story about institutional failure to act on a coroner's explicit warning.
• Trends and patterns: The Preventable Deaths Tracker (a research project based at Oxford University) has analysed the full PFD database to identify systemic patterns. Their data is publicly available and can provide the analytical backbone for a feature or investigation.
• Personal injury lawyers: Law firms specialising in clinical negligence, fatal accident, and human rights cases closely track PFD reports affecting their clients and sectors. They can be useful background sources for understanding the systemic implications of individual reports.

High-Profile Inquests: Special Considerations

Inquests involving celebrities, victims of high-profile crimes, or deaths with political significance carry additional challenges and responsibilities for journalists:

• Family media engagement: In high-profile cases, bereaved families often appoint communications advisers or issue statements through solicitors. These managed communications are designed to ensure the family's perspective is represented accurately. Respect the family's communication choices and do not attempt to obtain personal contact details through intermediaries.
• Legal representation and public interest: In major inquests, the legal teams representing families, institutions, and the state are often senior barristers. Their questions and submissions to the coroner are public record and frequently contain the most significant revelations. Shorthand note-taking during barrister submissions is essential — these are often the moments that generate headlines.
• Rival family factions: Occasionally, inquests involve complex family dynamics where different family members have conflicting interests or accounts. Report these situations with great care. IPSO Clause 4 applies equally to all family members, and contributing to inter-family conflict through your coverage can cause real harm.
• Political pressure and public inquiries: Some high-profile inquest conclusions have triggered calls for public inquiries (the Hillsborough disaster is the most prominent example). Where this is the political context, your inquest coverage is part of a longer accountability story. Keep records of all reporting, as material from coroner's proceedings may be referenced in subsequent inquiry evidence.
• Online harassment of families: In some high-profile cases, conspiracy theories circulate about the circumstances of the death, and bereaved families become targets of online harassment. Do not reproduce or amplify fringe theories in your coverage. If the conspiracy angle becomes relevant (for example, if it is causing genuine distress to a family), report it as a harassment story, not a factual claim.

Writing Sensitive Inquest Reports

Inquest reporting involves some of the most sensitive material a journalist will handle. The IPSO Editors' Code and editorial good practice require particular care:

• Suicide reporting: Where an inquest returns a conclusion of suicide, follow the Samaritans' media guidelines. Do not describe the method in detail, do not use the phrase “committed suicide” (use “died by suicide” or “took their own life”), and include helpline information in your article. IPSO Clause 5 requires particular care in reporting suicide to avoid excessive detail of method.
• Children and young people: Deaths of children generate intense public interest, but the family's grief must be respected. IPSO Clause 6 protects children's privacy and welfare. Even where the child is deceased, consider whether identifying them serves the public interest.
• Graphic evidence: Inquests sometimes involve distressing medical or forensic evidence. Use editorial judgement about how much detail to include. The test is whether the detail is necessary for the reader to understand the story, not whether it makes for dramatic copy.
• Family contact: IPSO Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) restricts approaches to bereaved people. Make enquiries sensitively, respect refusals, and do not persist if a family does not want to speak. Many families do want their story told — but on their terms and timeline.

Deaths in State Custody: A Specialist Reporting Area

Deaths in prisons, police custody, immigration detention, and mental health units are automatically subject to inquest. They represent some of the most important accountability journalism available to court reporters, because they expose how the state treats people in its care and whether the institutions responsible are fulfilling their duty to protect life.

The statistics are stark. The Prison Reform Trust, the Howard League, and INQUEST publish regular analyses of custody death figures. England and Wales consistently has one of the higher prison death rates in western Europe, and the rate of self-inflicted deaths in prisons has been particularly elevated since 2013, when austerity-driven staffing reductions reduced suicide prevention capacity. Each of these deaths triggers an inquest, and many trigger Prisons and Probation Ombudsman investigations, generating a volume of accountability documentation that no single journalist or outlet can fully process.

For local journalists, custody deaths in local prisons provide important accountability stories that the national media rarely covers with adequate depth. The HM Prison and Probation Service publishes a list of all prisons in England and Wales, including their local authority area. A journalist based near a large prison can build a specialism in covering custody deaths at that institution, using the combination of inquest reporting, PPO investigation reports, and direct contact with bereaved families to produce sustained accountability journalism that can genuinely change institutional behaviour.

• Prisons and probation: Prison deaths — including deaths from self-inflicted injury, natural causes in custody, and homicides — are subject to investigations by the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO) as well as inquest. PPO investigation reports are published (with some redactions) and are an essential companion to inquest reporting. They often contain more detail about institutional failings than the inquest conclusion itself.
• Police custody: Deaths in or following police contact are investigated by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC). IOPC investigation reports are published and may run in parallel with the inquest. In deaths involving police use of force, the inquest scope typically includes whether the force used was lawful, triggering an Article 2 ECHR analysis.
• Mental health detention: Deaths of patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 in NHS or private mental health facilities trigger both CQC scrutiny and inquest. The independent mental health charity INQUEST provides specialist support and data on mental health custody deaths.
• Immigration detention: Deaths in immigration removal centres (IRCs) and during removals are investigated by the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (for IRC deaths) and by the Border Force investigation team. These deaths receive relatively little media coverage given their volume and the vulnerability of the people involved.
• Data sources: The charity INQUEST publishes annual statistics on custody deaths and maintains a database of individual cases. These figures are often more current and more disaggregated than official government statistics. The Prison Reform Trust, the Howard League for Penal Reform, and Amnesty International provide additional context and expert commentary.

Practical Checklist

Before and during inquest coverage:

• Contact the coroner's office in advance to confirm the listing and ask about any existing reporting restrictions
• Check the Judiciary website PFD database for any previous PFD reports relating to the same institution or issue
• Confirm whether the inquest is a jury inquest or Article 2 inquest — both significantly affect scope and conclusions
• Introduce yourself to the coroner's officer on arrival and ask for a running order of witnesses
• Use “conclusion” not “verdict” in all copy — this has been the correct term since 2019
• For suicide conclusions, follow Samaritans guidelines and include the Samaritans helpline number in your article
• Set a follow-up reminder to check whether PFD responses are received within the 56-day deadline
• Respect family wishes about media contact under IPSO Clause 4 — never persist after a refusal

Common Mistakes

• Using “verdict” instead of “conclusion”: This has been incorrect since 2019. It marks you as inexperienced and will be noticed by coroners and their officers.
• Describing suicide methods in detail: This breaches IPSO Clause 5 and the Samaritans' media guidelines. Even where the inquest evidence is graphic, editorial restraint is required.
• Not including Samaritans helpline contact: IPSO expects helpline information to be included in articles where suicide is reported as a conclusion.
• Missing PFD reports: Many journalists attend an inquest, file the conclusion story, and never follow up on the PFD. This misses some of the most valuable and actionable journalism that inquests produce.
• Approaching families immediately after conclusion: Wait until the immediate aftermath has passed. Families in shock are protected by IPSO Clause 4, and intrusive approaches can also damage your publication's reputation.
• Assuming all coroner's courts operate the same way: Practice varies significantly between coroners. Always check the specific court's approach to press access, note-taking, and listing information.

Red Flags

• A coroner moving to exclude the press for reasons that do not clearly engage a recognised statutory exception
• An NHS trust or police force receiving a PFD report and failing to respond within the 56-day statutory deadline
• A PFD response that promises action but provides no timeline, named responsible officer, or measurable outcome
• An interested person's legal representative attempting to prevent you from accessing documents that should be publicly available under open justice principles
• An inquest scope that appears to exclude evidence of potential state failure — this may indicate an arguable Article 2 case worth further investigation
• A coroner consistently ruling out evidence of wider systemic failure when the pattern of deaths suggests an institution-level problem
• Unexplained delays between a death and the opening of an inquest — these can be legitimate (criminal investigation running in parallel) or concerning (institutional delay)
• An NHS trust or care home that has received multiple PFD reports on the same issue over several years without demonstrating systemic improvement — this suggests the regulatory framework is failing to deliver accountability
• A coroner who routinely returns open conclusions without a clear explanation of why the evidence was insufficient — a pattern of open conclusions in one court warrants further investigation into whether cases are being adequately prepared

Understanding Inquest Verdicts and Conclusions: A Journalist's Reference

Coroners do not deliver verdicts in the criminal law sense; they reach “conclusions” about the manner of death. These conclusions must be reported accurately — misreporting a conclusion (for example, describing a “suicide” conclusion as a “murder” conclusion, or failing to distinguish between narrative and short-form conclusions) is both factually inaccurate and potentially harmful to families. The standard short-form conclusions available to coroners are: natural causes, accident, misadventure, lawful killing, unlawful killing, suicide, an open conclusion, and an industrial disease conclusion. Each has a specific legal meaning that differs from everyday usage.

• Unlawful killing: A conclusion of unlawful killing means the coroner (or jury) has concluded, to the civil standard (balance of probabilities), that the deceased was killed unlawfully. This is not a finding of criminal guilt — it does not name a perpetrator and does not trigger a prosecution, though it may provide grounds for police to re-examine a case.
• Suicide: A conclusion of suicide requires the coroner or jury to be satisfied that the deceased intended to take their own life, to the balance of probabilities (not beyond reasonable doubt, as was required under the previous standard). The Samaritans' media guidelines apply to reporting this conclusion and the evidence leading to it.
• Open conclusion: An open conclusion is returned when the evidence is insufficient to reach any other conclusion. It does not mean that the death is suspicious — it means the evidence does not support a definitive conclusion on the cause or manner of death.
• Narrative conclusion: A narrative conclusion is a statement of facts that the coroner or jury considers proved, addressing the circumstances and cause of death. In complex cases — particularly where state bodies are involved — narrative conclusions can run to several pages and contain important findings of fact that do not appear in the short-form conclusion. Read the full narrative, not just the headline conclusion.
• Article 2 and enhanced scope inquests: Where a death has occurred in state custody, following police contact, or in other circumstances engaging Article 2 of the ECHR (right to life), the inquest must apply an enhanced scope. This means examining not just the immediate cause of death but the systems and decisions that may have led to it — a significantly broader inquiry with correspondingly richer journalism material.

Data and Technology in Inquest Reporting

Data-driven journalism is transforming inquest reporting in the UK. The Preventable Deaths Tracker (preventabledeathstracker.research.ox.ac.uk), developed by academic researchers at Oxford University, has made the Prevention of Future Deaths report database significantly more accessible and analytically powerful. Rather than relying on individual reports, journalists can now identify patterns across hundreds of reports: which types of death generate the most PFD reports, which organisations receive the most reports, and crucially, which organisations have consistently failed to respond or to implement the recommendations they have been given.

Beyond the PFD database, inquest-related data includes Chief Coroner annual reports (with aggregate statistics on inquest outcomes, waiting times, and prevention of future death report numbers), NHS serious incident data (published in aggregate by NHS England), Prison and Probation Ombudsman investigation reports (for deaths in custody), and Independent Office for Police Conduct investigation reports (for deaths following police contact). Combining these data sources can identify systemic patterns in preventable deaths that no individual inquest would reveal.

• FOI to obtain inquest lists: Most coroner areas publish upcoming inquest lists online, but the coverage is inconsistent. FOI requests can be used to obtain inquest lists, including the names of deceased, the date and location of the inquest, and the nature of the case. This intelligence allows forward-planning of inquest coverage rather than reactive reporting of individual verdicts.
• The Chief Coroner's annual report: Published annually and available at judiciary.gov.uk, the Chief Coroner's report includes data on inquest waiting times, PFD report numbers by category, and narrative accounts of significant developments in coronial practice. It is an essential overview document for any journalist covering the inquest beat.
• Open-source tools for PFD analysis: The Preventable Deaths Tracker allows users to search PFDs by coroner, by category, by recipient, and by timeframe. It also tracks response rates and response quality. Using this tool to identify which NHS trusts, prisons, or other organisations have received multiple PFD reports without implementing recommendations provides a ready-made accountability investigation framework.

Open Justice and Access: Your Rights in the Coroner's Court

Coroners' courts operate on the open justice principle — the same foundational presumption that applies to criminal and civil courts. This means journalists have the right to be present at inquests and to report what is said and determined. Attempts by coroners to exclude journalists, or to prevent reporting of proceedings that the law permits, are unlawful and should be challenged. The Coroners (Inquests) Rules 2013 govern media access to inquest proceedings; the Chief Coroner's Guidance Note 22 on “Reporting Restrictions and the Media at Inquests” is an essential reference document for any journalist covering an inquest.

In practice, coroners have broad discretion over the conduct of their courts and vary considerably in their attitudes to media presence. Some coroners actively facilitate press access, providing written copies of verdicts and ensuring reporters are seated where they can hear proceedings. Others are more restrictive. When you encounter a coroner who is limiting access inappropriately, the correct response is to raise it politely at the time (citing the open justice principle and the Coroners Rules), to report the restriction to your editor immediately, and where appropriate to contact the Chief Coroner's Office and the Society of Editors for guidance on challenging the decision.

• Judicial review of exclusion orders: An order excluding the press from an inquest can be challenged by judicial review in the Administrative Court. This is a significant step, but the threat of judicial review challenge has in practice been sufficient to cause coroners to reconsider unjustified exclusion decisions.
• Documents at inquest: There is no automatic right to access documents used at an inquest (post-mortem reports, witness statements, expert reports). However, coroners have discretion to release documents to the media, and some do so as a matter of practice. A polite written request to the coroner's officer explaining the journalistic purpose often succeeds.
• Reporting restrictions: Coroners can impose reporting restrictions in limited circumstances — primarily to protect the interests of witnesses who may be at risk, or where a child is involved. Section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 allows coroners to postpone reporting of inquest proceedings where contemporaneous reporting might prejudice related criminal proceedings. These restrictions must be proportionate and time-limited.
• Inquest lists: Most coroners' courts publish upcoming inquest lists on the coroner's court section of their local authority website. Monitoring these lists is a reliable way to identify significant inquests in advance, enabling preparation and attendance rather than reliance on court outcomes alone.

NHS and Healthcare Deaths: A Specialist Reporting Area

Deaths where NHS care may have contributed to or caused the outcome are among the most legally and ethically complex areas of inquest journalism. They involve bereaved families, NHS trusts or GP practices as Interested Persons, sometimes individual clinical staff, and a healthcare system acutely sensitive to reputational damage. NHS organisations routinely instruct specialist healthcare barristers for major inquests, and journalists covering these proceedings need to understand the particular dynamics involved.

The NHS serious incident and investigation framework runs parallel to the coronial process. When a patient dies in circumstances that may constitute a serious incident, the relevant NHS organisation must conduct an internal investigation under the Patient Safety Incident Response Framework (PSIRF). These investigation reports are not automatically public, but they are disclosable to families under a duty of candour regime. FOI requests for serious incident reports are frequently refused, but where the information has been shared with the family, the family may share it with journalists. The Health Services Safety Investigations Body (HSSIB) conducts independent investigations of a subset of serious NHS incidents and publishes all its reports publicly.

• Duty of candour: NHS organisations have a statutory duty of candour — a legal obligation to be open and honest with patients and families when something has gone wrong. Evidence that this duty has been breached (that a trust concealed or misrepresented information to a bereaved family) is a significant story in its own right.
• CQC inspection data: The Care Quality Commission publishes inspection reports and ratings for NHS trusts. A trust that has been rated “Requires Improvement” or “Inadequate” on safety, and where a patient has since died, may have inspection data that contextualises the inquest.
• Coroner's narrative verdicts: In NHS cases, a coroner may return a narrative verdict rather than a short-form conclusion. These narrative verdicts can include findings of gross negligence, system failures, or breached policies. Reading the full narrative verdict — not just the headline conclusion — often reveals the most significant findings.
• HSSIB reports: The Health Services Safety Investigations Body (hssib.org.uk) publishes independent investigation reports that are protected from being used in civil or regulatory proceedings. These reports are often more candid about system failures than standard NHS investigation reports because their findings cannot be used against the trust in subsequent litigation.

Working With Bereaved Families: Ethical and Practical Guidance

Families are the most important source for inquest journalists, and they are also the most vulnerable. They are experiencing acute grief while simultaneously navigating an unfamiliar legal process, often without legal representation, and frequently dealing with institutional responses — from police, NHS trusts, or prisons — that they experience as evasive or defensive. The journalist who gains a family's trust has an obligation to justify that trust through careful, accurate, and compassionate reporting.

The IPSO Editors' Code clause on intrusion into grief or shock is not merely a regulatory obligation — it describes the minimum threshold for ethical conduct. In practice, this means: always approach families through an intermediary if possible (INQUEST, a solicitor, a family liaison officer) rather than showing up unannounced; explain clearly who you are and what you intend to do with any information they give you; give them genuine control over what is attributed to them by name and what is treated as background; and check back with them before publication if anything has changed or if you have included any detail they may not have anticipated.

• Understand what families want from the inquest: Some families want maximum publicity as a tool for accountability; others want minimal coverage to protect their privacy and their loved one's dignity. Ask, do not assume.
• The inquest is not the end: Families often pursue civil actions, inquiries, or campaigns after an inquest. Maintaining the relationship — and the story — beyond the conclusion of proceedings can produce more durable investigative journalism than a single inquest report.
• Explain the process: Many families are confused by inquest procedure, coroner's language, and what different conclusions mean. A journalist who can explain clearly and accurately what is happening earns trust and often gets more useful information as a result.
• Trauma-informed practice: Covering deaths — particularly violent, sudden, or suspicious deaths — has a cumulative psychological cost on journalists. The Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma (dartcenter.org/europe) provides specialist resources for journalists covering traumatic events, including guidance on managing secondary trauma.

Primary Sources

• Judiciary: Prevention of Future Deaths Reports — Searchable PFD database
• Coroners and Justice Act 2009 — Full text on legislation.gov.uk
• Samaritans Media Guidelines — Suicide reporting guidelines for journalists
• INQUEST — Charity supporting bereaved families and monitoring state-related deaths
• Court Reporting Guide for UK Journalists — General court reporting fundamentals
• Contempt of Court for UK Reporters — Legal risks when reporting proceedings