What powers do coroners’ inquests have compared with criminal trials in the UK?
Executive summary
Coroners’ inquests are inquisitorial, public fact-finding hearings designed to establish who the deceased was and how, when and where they died, not to determine criminal guilt or civil liability coroners-post-mortems-and-inquests" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">[1] [2]. They operate with different evidential rules and remedies to criminal trials: lower standards of proof for most conclusions, no prosecution or defence teams as such, powers to make preventive reports and to refer evidence to prosecutors, but no power to impose criminal punishment [3] [4] [5] [6].
1. Purpose and legal character — inquiry not prosecution
The coroner’s statutory role is narrowly investigative: to determine identity and cause and to record findings of fact; coronial proceedings are explicitly “not a trial” and the coroner must not attribute blame or decide questions of criminal or civil liability [1] [2] [7]. That inquisitorial character contrasts with criminal trials, where the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the court determines criminal responsibility with power to sentence.
2. Standards of proof and conclusions — civil thresholds, narrow criminal exceptions
Inquests generally reach conclusions on the balance of probabilities (the civil standard) for most short-form or narrative findings, which is lower than the criminal standard used in trials [3] [4]. There is an important exception: findings of “unlawful killing” (and suicide) historically invoke the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt, and jurisprudence and guidance have produced debate about whether inquests can return unlawful killing findings inconsistent with a prior criminal acquittal [4] [8] [9].
3. Evidence, participants and adversarial features
Coroners gather and hear evidence, call witnesses and invite “properly interested persons” to make representations, but there are no prosecution and defence teams in the criminal sense; interested persons may have legal representatives and hearings have become more adversarial in practice, prompting concern about funding and family experience [4] [10] [8]. Coroners can order post-mortems and release evidence to suspects, but they normally adjourn inquests while criminal proceedings are pending to avoid prejudice [9] [6].
4. Outcomes and enforcement — findings, reports, and referrals, but no sentences
An inquest’s outcome is a factual conclusion and may trigger non-punitive measures: coroners can issue Prevention of Future Deaths (PFD) reports to organisations urging action to avoid recurrence and can refer evidence of criminality to the Crown Prosecution Service, potentially catalysing investigations or prosecutions [5] [6]. Unlike a criminal trial, an inquest cannot convict, imprison or award damages; its practical force is persuasive, remedial and administrative rather than punitive.
5. Interaction with criminal trials — priority, adjournment and post-trial resumption
Where a suspected criminal offence is under investigation or prosecution, criminal proceedings take priority and coroner must usually adjourn the inquest until they conclude; after a trial the coroner may resume the inquest but must avoid conclusions inconsistent with criminal outcomes as constrained by statute and case law, an area of contested interpretation [9] [8]. This overlap can leave families facing parallel processes, sometimes prolonging answers and producing apparently divergent verdicts.
6. Practical limits, transparency and democratic scrutiny
Inquests are held in public and form part of open justice, but practice varies across coroners’ areas and only a small minority of inquests sit with juries; there are limits on compelling overseas witnesses and concerns about increasing adversarialism, legal aid and the use of written inquests under recent legislation [2] [11] [4]. Records and older inquest files may be dispersed across local archives, complicating historical accountability [12].
Conclusion — complementary but distinct powers
Coronial inquests and criminal trials play complementary roles in the UK death-investigation landscape: inquests have the investigatory authority to establish facts, recommend systemic change and refer suspected crimes, but they lack the adjudicative powers, penal consequences and higher evidential threshold of criminal trials; tensions between the two systems—over timing, standards and public expectations—continue to generate legal and policy debate [5] [3] [8].