Jury Inquests Explained

Introduction

Most inquests are heard by a Coroner sitting alone. Jury inquests are comparatively unusual now, although in medieval times, all inquests were held with jurors. Ministry of Justice statistics record that 527 inquests were held with juries in England and Wales during 2025, representing approximately 1% of all inquests.

However, jury inquests are more common in certain types of case, including some deaths in custody, deaths involving the police and fatal accidents at work. The jury question is often addressed during case-management hearings.

For families, being told that an inquest will be heard by a jury can make an already unfamiliar process feel even more formal or intimidating. It can also create uncertainty about who will make the important decisions and what role the Coroner will continue to have.

This article explains when a jury is required, when a Coroner may choose to summon one and what the jury does during the inquest.

For a wider explanation of the inquest process, see What Happens at an Inquest? – A Step-by-Step Guide.

Are All Inquests Heard by a Jury?

No. The starting point under section 7 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 is that an inquest will be held without a jury unless one of the statutory exceptions applies.

The legislation states:

“An inquest into a death must be held without a jury unless subsection (2) or (3) applies.”

A jury will therefore only be summoned where:

The law requires a jury because of the circumstances of the death; or
The Coroner decides that there is a sufficient reason to hold the inquest with a jury.

So the fact that an inquest is complicated, controversial or likely to attract media attention does not automatically mean that a jury must be called. Indeed, those are not decisive or even very weighty factors.

When Is a Jury Legally Required?

A Coroner must hold an inquest with a jury where there is reason to suspect that one of the circumstances set out in section 7(2) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 applies.

These circumstances, which are considered in detail in the Chief Coroner’s Guidance on Jury Inquests, fall into three principal categories.

A. Deaths in Custody or State Detention

A jury is required where the Coroner has reason to suspect that the deceased died while in custody or state detention and either:

The death was violent or unnatural; or
The cause of death is unknown.

State detention can include:

Prison custody;
Police custody;
Detention under certain provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983;
Immigration detention; and
Other circumstances in which a person was legally detained by the state.

A death in custody does not invariably require a jury. For example, where someone dies in prison from entirely natural causes and there is no reason to suspect that the death was violent or unnatural, the statutory requirement for a jury may not arise.

However, an inquest must still be held where a person dies while in custody or state detention, even if a jury is not required. The distinction between the obligation to hold an inquest and the separate requirement for a jury is reflected in the Ministry of Justice’s explanation of the coronial process.

B. Deaths Resulting from Police Acts or Omissions

A jury is also required where the Coroner has reason to suspect that the death resulted from an act or omission of a police officer or a member of a service police force, while purportedly carrying out their duty.

This provision is not limited to deaths occurring inside a police station. Depending on the circumstances, it may apply to deaths following police contact, police pursuits, arrests, the use of force or other operational decisions.

There must nevertheless be a sufficient connection between the suspected act or omission and the death. The mere fact that the police had some involvement before a person died does not automatically make a jury mandatory. The relevant approach is addressed in the Chief Coroner’s Guidance on Jury Inquests.

C. Notifiable Accidents, Poisonings or Diseases

A jury is required where the Coroner has reason to suspect that the death was caused by a legally notifiable accident, poisoning or disease. An accident is “notifiable” for this purpose where legislation requires notice to be given to a government department, or to an inspector or other officer of a government department.

This commonly arises in workplace death cases where an accident was required to be reported under legislation such as the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013 (RIDDOR).

However, the mere fact that someone died at work does not necessarily mean that a jury is required. The relevant question is whether the death was caused by an accident, poisoning or disease which was legally notifiable.

In considering whether an accident was work-related, relevant matters may include whether a significant role was played by:

The way in which the work was carried out;
Machinery, equipment or substances used for the work; or
The condition of the site or premises.

The Chief Coroner’s Guidance on Jury Inquests explains that a jury may be required even if the accident was not actually reported, provided that there was a legal obligation to report it. Conversely, an incident does not become legally notifiable merely because someone chose to report it.

Can a Coroner Choose to Hold an Inquest with a Jury?

Yes. Even where a jury is not required by law, the Coroner may decide to summon one if there is a “sufficient reason” for doing so.

This is a judicial discretion. There is no fixed category of cases in which a discretionary jury must be summoned.

The Coroner should consider the circumstances of the particular case, the issues which the inquest will investigate and the representations made by the family and other Interested Persons.

The Chief Coroner’s Guidance No. 7 states that, particularly in complex cases, the scope of the inquest should ordinarily be determined before the Coroner decides whether to summon a discretionary jury. The bereaved family should also be consulted before that decision is made.

Can the Family Ask for a Jury?

Yes. A bereaved family can ask the Coroner to hold the inquest with a jury.

The request will often be considered during the pre-inquest stages. The family, or its legal representative, can explain why a jury is said to be appropriate and identify the particular features of the case which support that request.

The family’s wishes are relevant and should be taken into account. They are not, however, determinative. The final decision remains with the Coroner unless the circumstances are ones in which section 7 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 makes a jury legally mandatory.

A family seeking a discretionary jury should therefore identify more than a general preference. It will usually be helpful to explain how the particular circumstances of the death and the issues which require investigation provide a sufficient reason for the inquest to be heard with a jury.

Are Article 2 Inquests Always Heard by a Jury?

No. Article 2 and the requirement for a jury are separate legal questions.

Article 2 determines the nature and extent of the state’s investigative obligation. Section 7 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 determines whether the inquest must be heard with a jury.

Some Article 2 inquests are heard by a Coroner sitting alone. Equally, some jury inquests do not engage Article 2.

There will often be an overlap in cases involving violent or unnatural deaths in state detention. In those circumstances, both Article 2 and the statutory jury requirement may be engaged. However, neither question should simply be assumed from the answer to the other.

So, as explained in the Chief Coroner’s Law Sheet on Article 2 inquests, there is no separate right under Article 2 to have an inquest heard by a jury.

For an explanation of the wider investigative duty, see What Does Article 2 Mean for My Family?

How Many Jurors Sit at an Inquest?

An inquest jury must contain between seven and eleven people.

In a relatively short and straightforward case, the Coroner may summon seven jurors. In a long or complicated inquest, it is common to begin with a larger jury so that the hearing can continue if an individual juror later becomes ill, is absent or has to be discharged.

The procedure for selecting and managing an inquest jury is explained in the Chief Coroner’s Guidance on Jury Inquests. Potential jurors may be asked whether they know:

The deceased or members of the family;
Any Interested Person;
Any important witness; or
Any organisation centrally involved in the inquest.

These questions are intended to identify possible conflicts of interest and ensure that the jury is impartial. Where more eligible jurors remain than are required, the final jury may be selected by random ballot.

What Does the Jury Decide?

The jury listens to the evidence and makes the factual determinations required by the inquest. This includes determining:

Who the deceased was;
When the deceased died;
Where the deceased died;
How the deceased came by their death; and
The medical cause of death.

In an Article 2 inquest, the jury may be required to consider the wider circumstances in which the death occurred.

The jury may return a recognised short-form conclusion, such as accident, suicide, natural causes or unlawful killing. It may instead, or additionally, return a narrative conclusion setting out the circumstances of the death in more detail.

In a complex case, the Coroner may provide the jury with a structured list of questions or issues to assist it in making its findings. The use of jury questionnaires and routes to conclusion is addressed in the Chief Coroner’s Guidance No. 7.

For further guidance on the possible outcomes, see What Conclusions Can a Coroner Reach?

What Does the Coroner Continue to Decide?

The Coroner remains responsible for the conduct of the inquest. The Coroner determines questions of law and procedure, including:

The scope of the investigation;
Which witnesses will be called;
What documentary evidence will be admitted;
The order in which witnesses will give evidence;
Whether particular questions are relevant;
Which possible conclusions are legally available to the jury; and
What legal directions the jury requires.

The Coroner therefore acts as the jury’s legal guide and gatekeeper. The jury cannot be invited to consider a conclusion which is not properly available on the evidence.

After all the evidence has been heard, the Coroner will summarise the evidence and direct the jury on the applicable law. The jury must then apply those directions when reaching its findings. The respective functions of the Coroner and jury are set out in the Chief Coroner’s Guidance on Jury Inquests.

Can Jurors Ask Questions?

Yes. Jurors are entitled to ask relevant questions of witnesses.

In practice, jurors will usually write their questions down and pass them to the Coroner. The Coroner can then consider whether each question is relevant and appropriate before putting it to the witness.

This allows the Coroner to ensure that questions remain within the lawful scope of the inquest and are expressed fairly. Questions about matters of law are dealt with by the Coroner rather than the jury.

The process by which jurors may ask questions is explained in the Chief Coroner’s Guidance No. 7.

Interested Persons, including eligible members of the family, may also ask relevant questions or have questions asked by their legal representatives.

For an explanation of participation rights, see Interested Person Status in Inquests: What Families Need to Know.

How Does a Jury Reach Its Decision?

Once the Coroner has completed the summing up and legal directions, the jury retires to consider its decision in private.

The jury will initially be asked to reach a unanimous conclusion.

If the jury has deliberated for a reasonable period and cannot agree unanimously, the Coroner may give a majority direction. This allows a conclusion to be accepted where no more than two jurors disagree with the majority.

The amount of time which must pass before a majority direction can properly be given will depend upon the length and complexity of the case. The Coroner must not place the jury under improper pressure to reach a decision.

The Chief Coroner’s Guidance on Jury Inquests explains that, if the jury remains unable to reach an acceptable conclusion, it must be discharged and a new jury summoned.

Can the Coroner Overrule the Jury?

The Coroner may correct an error of law, clarify an ambiguous answer or direct the jury to reconsider a conclusion which is legally inconsistent with the directions it has been given.

However, the Coroner cannot simply require the jury to change its conclusion because the Coroner would personally have reached a different decision.

The Coroner may invite the jury to clarify its findings or reconsider a legal difficulty, but cannot compel the jury to alter the conclusion which it ultimately returns. This distinction is explained in the Chief Coroner’s Guidance No. 7.

Does a Jury Decide Who Is to Blame?

No. A jury inquest is not a criminal trial or a civil claim.

Neither the Coroner nor the jury is permitted to determine criminal liability on the part of a named person or decide that a person or organisation is legally liable to pay compensation.

The jury can nevertheless make important factual findings about what happened. Depending on the evidence, those findings may include failures, delays, omissions or deficiencies which contributed to the death.

The distinction between establishing facts and formally determining legal liability is explained in the Government’s Guide to Coroner Services for Bereaved People. Although an inquest cannot decide a civil claim, its factual findings may still have considerable significance for the family and for any later proceedings.

For further information about the relationship between the two processes, see Can an Inquest Lead to a Civil Claim?

Does the Jury Decide Whether a Prevention of Future Deaths Report Is Made?

No. A Prevention of Future Deaths Report is a matter for the Coroner only.

The jury is not permitted to make recommendations, attach riders to its conclusion or suggest what an organisation should do differently in the future.

However, the jury may make factual findings which assist the Coroner in deciding whether concerns about a continuing risk of future deaths have arisen. The Coroner must then independently decide whether the statutory duty to make a report is engaged.

The separation between the jury’s fact-finding function and the Coroner’s reporting duty is addressed in the Chief Coroner’s Guidance No. 5: Reports to Prevent Future Deaths.

For a detailed explanation of these reports, see Prevention of Future Death Reports: Threshold, Purpose and Proper Limits.

Does a Jury Inquest Require Legal Representation?

There is no legal requirement for a family to instruct a Barrister or Solicitor simply because an inquest will be heard by a jury.

However, jury inquests are often associated with factually or legally complex deaths. They may involve several public bodies, extensive disclosure, expert witnesses and detailed legal submissions about the questions or conclusions which should be left to the jury.

Legal representation can assist a family by:

Reviewing the evidence and identifying missing material;
Making submissions about the scope of the inquest;
Addressing whether a jury is legally required;
Preparing questions for witnesses;
Making submissions about the possible conclusions;
Considering the wording of questions or issues for the jury; and
Ensuring that the family’s concerns are presented clearly and effectively.

For further guidance, see Do I Need a Barrister for an Inquest?

Practical Takeaways

Most inquests are heard by a Coroner without a jury.
A jury is mandatory in certain cases involving state detention, police acts or omissions and notifiable accidents, poisonings or diseases.
A Coroner may also summon a jury where there is a sufficient reason to do so.
A family can ask for a jury, but the family’s preference does not determine the outcome.
Article 2 inquests and jury inquests are separate legal concepts and one does not affect the other.
The jury decides the relevant facts and the conclusion, while the Coroner remains responsible for law and procedure.
A jury cannot determine civil or criminal liability.
Prevention of Future Deaths Reports remain the responsibility of the Coroner.

Final Thoughts

The presence of a jury changes who ultimately determines the factual outcome of the inquest, but it does not change the fundamental purpose of the process.

The inquest remains an independent investigation into who died and how, when and where they came by their death. The Coroner continues to control the hearing, decide questions of law and ensure that the jury considers only matters which are properly supported by the evidence.

For families, early preparation can be especially important in a jury inquest. Decisions about scope, disclosure, witnesses, expert evidence and the questions which may eventually be placed before the jury are often made well before the final hearing begins.

Where a family is uncertain whether a jury should be required, or how the jury process may affect the investigation, specialist advice at an early stage can help ensure that its concerns are properly identified and presented.

For families, the important point is that a jury inquest remains a fact-finding investigation led by the Coroner. Understanding the respective roles of the Coroner and jury can make the process feel more manageable and help families prepare for the decisions that may arise before and during the hearing.