Looks like the British forgot that since 14 May 1948 they have no longer any jurisdiction in their former Mandate.
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.