Thanks, John. But in a way both you & 999 were/are "begging the question" in the correct philosophical ignorantio elenchi sense of assuming the answer in replying to the question. I know what the rules are, and that the coroner has entitlements within them. My query is as to whether they should be so; as to what is the point of having a jury at all if the rules forbid them to decide unfetteredly on verdicts; & what could the coroner do if they declined, having heard all the facts, to be bound by them in reaching a verdict. These still seem to me worthwhile questions, in the light of the way these rules are sometimes used, as in e.g. the De Menezes case.