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"
What you've touched on here is the extraordinary power of a coroner in the English system. In some ways he has more discretion in the way he directs his jury than does a judge in a criminal or civil court: and it's not at all unusual for a Coroner to direct his jury to bring in a particular verdict. These powers are very ancient, and successive changes and modernisations in other parts of the legal system have usually passed by the office of Coroner. However, a thorough review of the Coroner's Court system was, I believe, commissioned a year or so ago. I've not heard anything about the outcome - either it's been quietly buried or the review is still in progress. Doubtless a Freeper expert in this area will enlighten us.