If the journalists involved had not protested and protested, at their own expense and using their own time, then unfortunately this case would never have been heard in open court.
There are countless cases that are heard behind closed doors, in the family court, where there are terrible things happening but they cannot be reported on. Coroners' courts are becoming more secretive (I've recently had a coroner refuse to release the name of the dead person, until my editor became heavily involved). But sadly there is no public appetite for open justice until something like this happens.
There are countless calls by the public for criminals to have anonymity until a conviction which will only result in more secrecy in our courts.
In this case there is no doubt that the coroner has been complicit in covering up the police's errors by holding a pathetic seven minute inquest. Just who did he think he was protecting? The child? No. The police? possibly. The family? Definitely, and misguidedly it seems. And yet the coroner is answerable seemingly to nobody, will face no action, and is not even subject to the freedom of information act so no questions can be asked of him.
I get weekly calls from families protesting that we have reported on the inquests of their loved-ones. This case shows why it's so important to keep inquests public.
There will be a serious case review, and like most others, the identities of the people involved will be redacted so it can't adequately be reported on.