Inquests - why waste time?
 

An example of what we hear so often reported as news:
Ignoring the details of this specific case, why do they do this? (i.e. open and adjourned) Is it just procedural? Because if it is, why is it news?

Then looking at this specific case, for example - looks like an open-and-shut case. They've got all the evidence - what are they waiting for?

Re: Inquests - why waste time?
 

It may be just procedural. It may be "news" because the BBC previously covered the case, and wanted to show the outcome?

It may also be opened and adjorned in case any one wants to present evidence?

I don't know, I could be wrong.

Re: Inquests - why waste time?
 

It is procedural. An inquest is opened on receipt of initial facts that indicate an unforseen death that requires an explanation. However it is rarely possible to get all the necessary witnesses, statements and other evidence together in one place so quickly, so the inquest is adjourned until such time as it is. That could be months away, and if any criminal charges are likely to arise out of the death, the inquest will not normally be resumed and completed until the criminal proceedings are completed.

The inquest was probably opened and adjourned in the coroner's own office in the presence of a police officer who read him an initial statement, rather than in a formal courtroom. The coroner's secretary will have passed this fact on to a contact in the media - probably the Press Association - for any other news organisation to pick up and mention as a news-in-brief.

It is newsworthy purely because it contains the words 'convicted', 'rapist' and 'killed'. Not that I'm cynical. :D

Ah, inquests ... I remember them well. They were usually an easy day's work for me, spend most of the day on the Press bench writing everything down, then spend the following morning writing them up. Sad as well though, as most of them were old people dying as a result of falling in the street or choking on something at their care home. :(