Would one of you like to expand on that?

The key difference between a Jamieson and a Middleton type inquest, as they're colloquially own- known by lawyers, is whether or not Article 2, the right to life, Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated by the Human Rights Act, is applicable, engaged in the inquest.

Is the coroner of the view that there was an arguable breach of the substantive Article 2 duties such that the inquest must comply with the investigative Article 2 duty? And what that means is that the coroner's obligation is not just to answer the four questions who, when, where, and how.

It turns how into how and in what circumstances.

So at the end of the inquest, the coroner or the jury have to reach a conclusion that addresses those broader circumstances.

They are also allowed to use critical language in a way that is not permitted in a non-Article 2 inquest.

It used to be the case that many would say the difference between an Article 2 and a non-Article 2 inquest was quite a large one.

Would either of you, again, Mary or Dan, like to talk about the inquest into Jack Ritchie's death? The inquest concluded in twenty twenty-two.