Just to note that inquests aren't just about findings made in the public interest. Yes in this case the lawyers were able to bring up questions about why there were no barriers on the bridge, and possibly a finding in the report will be that there should be more of them. That wouldn't help the families of the victims particularly but it could help others in the future. What inquests also do though is to describe the status of the deaths - eg, death by misadventure, unlawful killing etc - some of which can then open the way for legal actions against the responsible parties. In other words, while inquests themselves are fact-finding rather than adversarial, their conclusions may enable proceeding that are adversarial that wouldn't otherwise occur.
