One often reads in the report of an inquest that the Coroner informed the jury that he would not accept a certain verdict, or even that only certain verdicts can be considered. I have always found this puzzling.

In doing this, is he not pre-empting or arrogating a function which rightly belongs to the jury? Suppose the jury nevertheless feels that this is the verdict which the evidence they have heard points to and so that it is the verdict they wish to return? What would happen if they returned and told the Coroner this? If he then refused to accept it and they replied that they therefore felt unable to return a verdict at all, what then? How far do the Coroner's powers in determining a verdict in fact extend? And if they are to prevail over the opinions of the jury, why have a jury at all?

~MichaeL~