I take it you imply that therefore an inquest should not have been held. In fact there was no choice but to hold an inquest. English common law since the Middle Ages has required that when a body is produced which has suffered a sudden death, a coroner's inquest should be held on the cause of that death. The place where the death took place, English soil or not, is irrelevant. We can legitimately criticise the verdict as much as we please, but I don't think there can be any legitimate complaint about the fact of the inquest.
An inquest must be held, and that is not the same as a trial. However, it appears that the media has difficulty keeping the two apart (not only the present article).
However, to my uneducated mind it seems strange that the coroner could direct the jury this way:
"The coroner, Andrew Reid, told the 10-member inquest jury at King's Cross Coroner's Court that an unlawful killing verdict was the only one they could reach".
Why would you need a jury if there is only one verdict (sorry: finding) possible?
Again, I find analogy to the Clegg case compelling.
As Lady Bracknell would say: Once could be seen as an accident, but twice looks like carelessness.
Either you have a situation where British courts are heavily influenced by the politics of the day (eg: the Irish peace process, the anti-Israel agenda), or it is a case of no longer understanding what a war zone really means. (Maybe it is not either or but both and?) A sad state of affairs in either case.
As tragic as the death of Mr Miller is, he would have been wise to consider this saying before starting to run around with a camera on his shoulder during night time in Gaza:
"One may evade reality, but one cannot evade the consequences of evading reality"