Jury Inquests: Reporting Restrictions & Rules

When must a coroner sit with a jury?

The default position under s.7(1) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 is that an inquest is held without a jury. A jury becomes mandatory only in specified categories set out in s.7(2), and a coroner has a residual discretion under s.7(3) to empanel one in any other case where there is sufficient reason to do so.

Article 2 inquests: a distinct (overlapping) test

Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights — the right to life — is engaged where the state may bear some responsibility for a death: deaths in custody, under mental health detention, or following alleged failures by police, the NHS, or another public body. Where Article 2 is engaged, the inquest must be an enhanced inquiry: the question of “how” the person died is read broadly, as “in what circumstances”, extending the coroner's inquiry to systemic and organisational failures rather than just the immediate medical cause.

A jury requirement and Article 2 status frequently coincide — a death in police custody, for example, triggers both — but they are legally separate questions. Always check the coroner's pre-inquest review decision for whether Article 2 has been formally engaged, as this affects the scope of evidence and the detail of the conclusion, independent of whether a jury sits.

Majority conclusions and the standard of proof

Under s.9 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, a jury's determination should ordinarily be unanimous. A majority conclusion is permitted only where no more than two jurors disagree, and only after the coroner is satisfied the jury has deliberated for a reasonable period. For a full jury of 11, that means at least 9 must agree. The coroner announces the numerical split in open court, and this is reportable — do not simply say the conclusion was “reached by the jury” without noting whether it was unanimous or by majority where that has been stated.

The Supreme Court's decision in R (Maughan) v HM Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire [2020] UKSC 46 confirmed that the civil standard of proof — the balance of probabilities — applies to every short-form and narrative conclusion, including suicide and unlawful killing. Before Maughan, those two conclusions had effectively required proof close to the criminal standard. Get this right in your copy: a jury's unlawful killing conclusion on the balance of probabilities is not the same as a criminal conviction, and should never be reported as one.

Reporting witnesses and interested persons

Jury inquests are open to the public and press by default, and there is no dedicated youth-anonymity statute equivalent to s.45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 for coroners' courts. Fair and accurate contemporaneous reports of what is said in open court attract absolute privilege, in the same way as criminal court reporting.

Where a witness's safety may genuinely be at risk — for example following gang-related or domestic-homicide inquests — the coroner may restrict identification of that specific witness using their general case-management powers and the state's duty to protect Article 2 and Article 3 ECHR rights. This requires a specific application and reasoned decision; it is not automatic, and the general presumption remains in favour of open reporting of who gave evidence and what they said.

When a criminal investigation follows a jury's conclusion

If it becomes apparent during an inquest that a homicide offence may have been committed and a prosecution is realistically being considered, the coroner must suspend the inquest. It is typically resumed only to formally close matters once criminal proceedings conclude, or not resumed at all if the same facts are fully explored at trial.

Once proceedings become active for contempt purposes — arrest, charge, or the issue of a warrant — the strict liability rule under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 applies to your reporting exactly as it would for any other criminal case, including material you gathered or published during the earlier inquest phase.

Pre-publication checklist

• I have confirmed whether the inquest is proceeding with a jury and, if so, which s.7(2) category applies (or whether it is a discretionary jury under s.7(3)).
• I have checked whether Article 2 has been formally engaged, and reported the broader scope of the inquiry accordingly.
• I have reported whether the conclusion was unanimous or by majority, and stated the correct standard of proof — balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt.
• I have not described an unlawful killing conclusion as equivalent to a criminal conviction.
• Where a related criminal investigation is live or pending, I have applied the strict liability contempt test to everything I publish.
• Where I am naming a witness, I have checked whether any specific restriction has been made by the coroner in this case.

Common reporting errors to avoid

• ⚠Calling the conclusion a "verdict" — inquests return conclusions, not verdicts.
• ⚠Reporting an unlawful killing conclusion as though it identifies a criminally responsible individual — it does not.
• ⚠Describing a majority conclusion as reached "beyond reasonable doubt" — since Maughan, the standard is the balance of probabilities.
• ⚠Treating Article 2 engagement and the mandatory-jury categories in s.7(2) as the same test — they frequently overlap but are legally distinct.
• ⚠Continuing to publish inquest evidence about a named individual once related criminal proceedings against them become active, without applying the strict liability contempt test.

Related guides

Frequently asked questions