Police marksmen acted within the law

UK Police marksmen acted lawfully when they shot dead an alcoholic barrister brandishing a shotgun but their operation was marred with tactical blunders, an inquest jury ruled yesterday.

Four Scotland Yard firearms officers were fully justified in opening fire as the high-flying family law specialist drunkenly levelled his 12-bore game shooting gun at them.

Their fatal shots to the head, heart and liver of the 32-year-old brought an extraordinary armed siege and hours of fraught negotiations at his £2.2 million home in Markham Square, Chelsea, to a tragic end.

But a Westminster Coroner’s Court jury said officers should have given more thought to using his wife, Elizabeth, or close friend Michael Bradley, to diffuse the stand-off at an early stage.

They highlighted confusion among senior police ranks over who was responsible for 59 firearms officers armed with 109 weapons and said not enough weight was given to the fact Mr Saunders was clearly drunk, depressed and vulnerable.

The jury added, however, that none of these shortcomings contributed to Mr Saunders’ death on May 6, 2008, and that it could not be proved the barrister was trying to commit suicide by cop.

Police may have escaped further criticism after one juror asked if it would be possible to voice further “misgivings” about their handling of events, but was not given the opportunity.

Coroner Paul Knapman said he would write to the Metropolitan Police and Justice Secretary Ken Clarke to highlight lessons commanders could learn, parti­cularly over how they structure senior ranks.

In a legal ruling that can now be revealed, Dr Knapman said there was “insufficient evidence” to prove unlawful killing to a criminal standard and did not give the jury this option.

The Crown Prosecution Service will now review the circumstances of Mr Saunders’ death to see if significant new evidence emerged during the inquest and whether charges could be brought.

Although it is almost certain no firearms officer could face prosecution, legal experts may examine whether the mistakes of their colleagues could be consi­dered as negligence, misconduct or breaches of health and safety laws.

As a result of this move, the Independent Police Complaints Commission postponed the publication of its investigation which found the officers were justified in their actions.

Mr Saunders died from catastrophic injuries inflicted when seven police officers opened fire almost simultaneously from rooms and rooftops looking on to the third-storey kitchen of his home.

The barrister sparked the siege by firing his shotgun through the window during rambling phone conversations with Mr Bradley and the clerk of his Queen Elizabeth Building chambers in Temple.

The inquest heard the barrister had been battling alcoholism for several years and often disappeared during drunken binges which were followed by bouts of depression and violent mood swings.

At the time of his death, he was three times the legal drink-driving limit, after consuming the equivalent of two bottles of wine, was on prescribed Prozac and had recently taken cocaine.

His last moments as he opened a window, leaned outside and replied to police screaming “put the gun down” that he could not hear them, were filmed by a helicopter hovering overhead.

The inquest heard two-and-a-half hours of chaotic negotiations in which Mr Saunders told police it would be “painless” to die and that he wanted to speak to his wife to say goodbye.

Mrs Saunders, who is also a family law specialist at the same chambers, sat with her head bowed and dabbed her eyes as the nine to two majority narrative verdict was returned.

In a statement, she said: “From the day Mark died I have been committed to ensuring that the circumstances of his death should be subjected to a thorough and independent investigation.