This is quite a complex question, about the london bombings.  It
breaks down into two main parts.

1) The bombers are suspected to be suicide bombers.  As such, I
imagine that they cannot be tried in a court of law - because they're
dead. Is this correct?  Perhaps they can be tried, for example, by
being represented posthumously by a proxy?  If they can't be tried,
will their guilt or innocence be officially, legally established, and
if so, by what process? (A coroner's inquest, perhaps?)

2) What is the legal situation regarding the coverage of the events -
i.e. at the moment lots of press reports refer to the four men under
investigation as "the bombers" despite the fact that they have not
been proven guilty.  How is it that the press are allowed to state
this, as though it were a fact?

NB, please bear in mind that I am primarily interested in UK law and
media.  Also, that I am interested in any further reading, either
online or in books, that you might recommend that would supplement my
understanding of the answers to the main questions.

Thankyou.

Dear averageben-ga,

I should say from the outset that I am not a lawyer, but I am a former
London police officer, therefore the answer below is some of my
personal knowledge and additional research. As the investigation is
ongoing, most of my comments will be in general terms - not
specifically about the bombing.

There are three main locations where the evidence relating to this
matter could be given in the UK:

The Criminal Court
Coroners Court
Tribunal of Inquiry 

The Criminal Court
==============
If a persons dies at the time of, or after committing a criminal
offence, they cannot be charged with an offence or convicted of a
crime. There is no such option in UK law. However, evidence relating
to their actions will be given to the criminal court by witnesses if
another person who was involved with them in committing the offence
are brought before the court for trial. It must borne in mind that the
evidence given must be part of the case against the defendant and not
just an opportunity to relate evidence against the deceased. The trial
judge would decide as to what is relevant depending on the indictment.
It is not possible to speculate here as each case is different, but as
to how the crime was committed and by whom would be given in evidence
and open to challenge by the defence. No representative of the
deceased person is allowed to challenge this evidence.

Once a person is charged with an offence, the media are greatly
restricted as to what they can publish about the investigation or the
case.

Coroners Court
===========
Coroners' enquiries and inquests are conducted in accordance with the
Coroners Act 1988 and the Coroners Rules 1984.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880013_en_1.htm
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/research/coroners/1984rules.html

The Coroner is responsible for establishing: who the deceased was how;
when and where the deceased came by his death. Possible verdicts
include; natural causes, accident, suicide, unlawful or lawful
killing, industrial disease, and open verdicts (where there is
insufficient evidence for any other verdict). No blame is apportioned.
That is a matter for  a criminal or civil court.

Evidence will be given at the court as to how the person came by their
death. The family of the deceased person or their representative may
question the witnesses. The evidence given depends on the facts of the
case and the discretion of the Coroner.

?36 Matters to be ascertained at inquest

(1) The proceedings and evidence at an inquest shall be directed
solely to ascertaining the following matters, namely--
(a) who the deceased was;
(b) how, when and where the deceased came by his death;
(c) the particulars for the time being required by the Registration
Acts to be registered concerning the death.
(2) Neither the coroner nor the jury shall express any opinion on any
other matters.?

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/research/coroners/1984rules.html


?Will the inquest decide who is to blame?

  10. No. An inquest is not a trial. It is a limited inquiry into the
facts surrounding a death. It is not the job of the coroner to blame
anyone for the death, as a trial would do.

What is the purpose of an inquest?

  11. The inquest is an inquiry to find out who has died, and how,
when and where they died, together with information needed by the
registrar of deaths, so that the death can be registered.

21. ?The inquest tries to get at the truth, and can often help to stop
the spread of untrue stories about the death. ?

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/justice/legalprocess/coroners/work.html


Wakefield coroners office
?Inquests do not determine blame and the verdict must not identify
someone as having criminal or civil liability.  Possible verdicts
include; natural causes, accident, suicide, unlawful or lawful
killing, industrial disease, and open verdicts (where there is
insufficient evidence for any other verdict). ?

http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/CommunityAndLiving/Coroners/CoronersService+FAQs.htm

This Home Office site already partly linked above may have some
additional reading for you.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/justice/legalprocess/coroners/


Tribunal of Inquiry
============== 
This is commonly known as a Public Enquiry. It is set up under the
instructions of Parliament to examine matters of ?urgent public
importance?. (Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921). I believe the
government have already indicated that there may be an enquiry in the
current matter. You may recall that a Public Enquiry was held for the
Dunblane massacre and a report of this appears on this link. The
document usefully sets out its remit, powers and scope.
http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/scottish/dunblane/dunblane.htm

If a Public Enquiry is announced in this case, depending on its remit
and scope, evidence may be given on the deceased person and their
actions. This evidence will be open to challenge.

This document from the Public Administration Select Committee may
provide some useful background information on the history of Public
Enquiries.
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/Inq%20iandqpaper3.doc



Moving now to reporting of the events. The media and any publisher
(including the modern phenomenon of internet bloggers) must be careful
not to commit defamation - libel / slander. They should make every
attempt to report accurately and fairly (see Press Commission Code of
Practice below). The law is complex but in this case there is a saying
which is most appropriate in this case: ?You can?t libel the dead?.

This BBC article is a useful introduction to matter.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4630243.stm

I would now like to refer you to this web site for Journalism
Professionals which provides a very good outline of the defamation
law.

?Libel is the publication of a statement which exposes a person to:
Hatred, ridicule or contempt
or which causes him to be shunned or avoided
or which has a tendency to injure him in his office, trade or profession
in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally

Libel is all about words that damage a person's reputation in the eyes
of reasonable people.?

It provides a number of examples. This is very relevant:

?People add 2+2 and make 5: Example: An IRA terrorist blows himself up
on a bus. Another badly injured Irishman is lifted from the wreckage
and rushed to hospital and placed in a small ward guarded by armed
detectives. The police give the press those bare facts. The press draw
conclusions and report:
"Bus bomber under police guard. IRA man dies and accomplice injured."
The unfortunate Irishman had nothing at all to do with the bomber. He
was totally innocent. He sued a number of papers before he died.?

http://www.newsdesk-uk.com/law/libelcheck.shtml

Defamation Act 1996 for additional reading.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/1996031.htm

Department for Constitutional Affairs
Pre-Action Protocol for defamation
http://www.dca.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/protocols/prot_def.htm

Press Complaints Commission
http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/cop.asp


This is quite a complicated area and I hope this answers your
questions. If it does not, or the answer is unclear, then please ask
for clarification of this research before rating the answer. I shall
respond to the clarification request as soon as I receive it.
Thank you
answerfinder

Thanks, for what I believe to be a very thorough and informative answer.

Obviously a human court can't prosecute someone who's dead and it
would be unjust to prosecute someone uninvolved.

I've tried searching for details of "Michael Ryan" and "Barry Prudom"
- two men who shot themselves while being pursued for murder in
England.  It's easy to find descriptions of the crme and pursuit, but
not of the legal followup.

Somewhat similarly I seem to remember the inquiry on the number of
Harold Shipman's victims continued after his death - but he was
already convicted for 15 or so murders.

It looks like the tide of the coverage may be turning:

Today there is a story in The Sun which reports that a wife of one of
the suspects is not only in a state of disbelief (i.e. in denial), but
actually *refuses* to believe the accusations until she is shown proof
of their veracity. It's not a very sympathetic article, as the Sun
still refers to the man as a 'bomber', but it's still unprecedented as
far as I'm aware.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/1,,2005320810,00,00.html

In the Mirror, there is a story about how the facts at the crime
scenes point to the fact that 'the bombers' did not detonate the
devices that they were allegedly carrying, but rather that they were
set off automatically, and that the men were not aware that they were
going to die. Again, it is still taken as given that they meant to
kill, but did not mean to commit suicide.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15742951%26method=full%26siteid=94762%26headline=was%2dit%2dsuicide%2d%2d-name_page.html

I wonder how long it will be before people in the media start to
wonder if perhaps they were too quick to jump to conclusions.