Soldiers Inquests

[Anfield]

Yet again an inquest has returned a verdict that members of the Armed Forces were "unlawfully killed" in Afghanistan.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8653136.stm

As this is the only verdict which an Inquest jury can arrive at, see list below, is it really in the best interests of the relatives to have to sit and listen to how their loved ones died.



• natural causes;
• industrial disease;
• dependence on drugs ;
• non-dependent drug abuse;
• want of attention at birth ;
• killed himself/herself whilst the balance of
his/her mind was disturbed/suicide;
• attempted/self induced abort i o n ;
• accident/misadventure (which means the s a m e ) ;
• stillbirth ;
• Open verdict – this means that the cause of
death cannot be established and doubt re m a i n s
as to how the deceased came to their death.
In some cases “contributed to by neglect”
can be added (the law is incredibly limited on
when this can be applied and neglect does not
mean the same in law as it does in every d a y
language). “Systemic neglect” can also be
c o n s i d e red in these circumstances where
evidence showed that insufficient action was
taken to prevent a death.
The rare verdict of unlawful killing may be
returned if the death was due to an unlawful
act or gross negligence.

[Gronnuck]

There is no compulsion for the relatives to attend, and in most cases the families can be offered the opportunity to leave the proceedings prior to the disclosure of every minutia of the fatality. However most families do sit through the proceedings for a variety of personal reasons.