An alcoholic barrister who pointed his shotgun at police was lawfully killed when they opened fire in response, an inquest jury ruled today.
Mark Saunders, 32, died when Scotland Yard marksmen fired a volley of shots during a drunken stand-off at his home in Markham Square, Chelsea, on May 6 2008.
A jury at Westminster Coroner's Court ruled their lethal actions were lawful, proportionate and reasonable at the conclusion of a two-and-half-week inquest.
The panel found fatal shots to the head, heart and liver were "likely" to be caused by police shots that were lawfully fired in "reasonable self-defence".
The jury said it was not sure Mr Saunders "deliberately and consciously" used his shotgun to provoke police to shoot him.
The inquest heard the gunman said he expected to die several times during the evening but that he was extremely drunk and may have been in a fantasy world.
The jury said more detailed consideration should have been given by police commanders at an early stage in the siege to using his wife Elizabeth or friend Michael Bradley to defuse the confrontation.
But it added that this did not contribute to the deadly outcome.
Both his wife and Mr Bradley asked to speak to the gunman, who also wanted to contact them, but they were told it was too dangerous and to switch off their mobile phones.
This was despite the fact that Mr Saunders called Mr Bradley at about 7pm.
Mrs Saunders later found he had sent her a blank text message but her phone was off.
The jury said there was a "lack of clarity" over who was responsible for frontline firearms officers.
But it added that this did not contribute to the deadly outcome either.
The inquest heard that Superintendent Michael Wise did not know two officers, Sergeant SE and Inspector Nicholas Bennett, were undertaking the role of bronze firearms commander.
The coroner said this may have contributed to the move to switch on static floodlights despite a decision by Mr Wise that this would be too dangerous.
Confusion
It was claimed that this "fundamental" confusion had led to poor decisions over the positions of marksmen surrounding Mr Saunders.
The jury found insufficient weight was given after Mr Saunders fired his shotgun through his window at 9.09pm to the fact that he was a vulnerable alcoholic.
But it added that this did not make a contribution to his death.
Police knew Mr Saunders was a member of a so-called special population group because of his long-term alcoholism and history of violent mood swings.
The inquest heard guidelines state police could consider "backing off" to allow tension to ease, the affects of alcohol to dissipate and the subject's mental or emotional state to stabilise.
In a legal ruling that can now be revealed, Coroner Dr Paul Knapman said there was not enough evidence to prove unlawful killing and did not give the jury this option.
He said: "I am satisfied there is insufficient evidence to justify leaving the jury with the option of finding that unlawful killing is made out to the criminal standard."
The Crown Prosecution Service will now review the circumstances of Mr Saunders's death to see if new and significant evidence emerged during the inquest.
In September 2009, prosecutors said there was insufficient evidence to charge any firearms officer as it could not be proved they were not acting in self-defence.
But it emerged that prosecutors also considered charges of gross negligence, misconduct and health and safety breaches against those in charge of the operation.
As a result of this move, the Independent Police Complaints Commission has postponed the publication of its investigation.
It emerged during the inquest that IPCC officials concluded that the officers were justified in their actions.
Jury decides barrister Mark Saunders was 'lawfully' shot dead by police
October 07, 2010
Comments
Login or Register to comment
"An alcoholic barrister who pointed his shotgun at police was lawfully killed when they opened fire in response, an inquest jury ruled today."
well...you didn't have to be a rocket scientist to work that one out did you?
How much money did that waste then? (well not wasted if you're a lawyer!!)
"I fought the law and the law won"!
So if the police had ESP, this incident would never have happened. They have done the right thing in giving the chap enough time to surrender.
Given the intense scrutiny of firearms officers who discharge their weapon & kill someone, even when justified in this case, it still surprises me that any officer volunteers for the role. carry out your duties and, people with 20/20 hindsight will put you on a murder charge given the slightest chance.
We'll never know if Saunders was trying for "death by cop", but he gave the officers no other option.
This decision is a disgrace. An army marksmen can hit a moving target from 1000 yards, but the police "marksman", cant hit a weapon, or hand from 30 yards. Nothing more than a training exercise for these idiots who shouldn't be let loose with a cap gun, let alone the real thing. If you thing this isn't possible check out the numerous footage from the USA where far better armed assailants are disarmed with accurate shots.
Remember this decision the next time some poor deluded soul is shot.
Moral of the story If you are silly enough to have a gun on your property. Don't point it at armed police or anybody. Sorry the guy died but the police had no choice.
Another pubic execution with full TV coverage (very sick its getting just like America) I am not sure how the press got this video footage but it only shows how bad the police handle a situation like this. 2008 only two years ago, what was going on with the video quality, was it a cheap mobile phone ? Poor guy was drunk and depressed, an intelligent man, but gone off the rails a bit due no doubt to his job. Whey on earth did the police not give his poor wife a chance to talk to him, or maybe his mother. At a sub conscious level both would have a better chance to get through to him and put the gun down. Instead you had Sandra or Sharon from the met with a abrasive cockney accent shouting "Mark pick up the phone, pick up the phone Mark" Why have they not set up a PA system ? he said he could not hear what the armed officer were trying to shout at him. If you think about it they handle a situation like this how they have always handled it with brute force. Mark's gun had no bullets in it, OK the police did not know this but it does prove Mark never fired one shot, and the 100 armed officers over reacted (again). Its 2010 why can they not pipe in a sedative gas in stand off or hostage situations like ? He was not a desperate criminal on the run he had not hurt anyone, the guy was depressed and drunk. Massive over reaction again, I am convince these stand off get to the stage were it " OK Sargent my teas going cold wind it up, lets call it a day". Think about it at some point anyone will simply fall asleep if you span it out long enough (shifts), one a scale of 1-10 how well they handled this they would be struggling for a one.
The headline appears to be at odds with the article. The headline claims that the jury decided the shooting was lawful, but the article claims the jury were not given the option to find it unlawful and therefore were not in a position to make that decision.
Very tragic and sad. But the Police have to protect the public. I'm sure there is no pleasure or sense of any achievement amongst them when this kind of thing happens. As for any operational criticism on here, I would say they don't get a lot of real-life practice in the UK, whereas the American Police certainly do. Also, the American armed police don't 'mess about' when it comes to gun crime.
It's 'dirty work' being done on our behalf, remember.
He got what he wanted .
And if you think maybe the Police could of did it differently because he didn't kill anyone, then that would send out the wrong message ,and lets face it, if you act like this man you will die ,help is out there if you are depressed and suicidal .
Very Sad this story. All the bright future in front of him and lets not forget he started drinking at 13 but still rose in the legal ranks, imagine what he could have been without the alcohol and drugs, bet his parents are asking the same thing! all drink and drugs do is mess up the brain big time. Mental health issues whether through genetics or abuse is the worse illness anyone can have it does not show like a broken leg but plays havoc with your everyday life. What I dont understand is why the police have to use loaded guns why not darts with a sedative in like on wildlife, just a thought!!
Actions have consequences, sticking a shotgun out of the window and fire a few times is an action with some fairly predictable consequences.
There a few things the police need to be condemned about out in this case, but shooting him isn't one of them.
As for Charles Evans claims of "An army marksmen can hit a moving target from 1000 yards", errr, no - the British Army sniper rifle of choice, the Arctic Warfare Super Magnum, is designed for accurate shots of around 600m (around 650 yards).
Perhaps we should enquire if the cast of the Expendables are free to join the Met?
Oh my word.
Am I reading this right.
A maniac on the loose killed by police quite rightly, hold on, and the police officer is not being prosecuted!?!?
WHATS GOING ON, THERE MUST BE A GOD.
I see ligth at the end of the tunnel for this country's justice system. result.
Charles Evans, you're funny! I guess you watch a lot of television..."I was jus' tryin' to wound him!" Ever heard of someone dying of shock, or bloodloss? Ever think that when someone points a loaded weapon at you you might not have time to shoot their wrist so that the weapon flies out of their hand, like in those Forties westerns you're so fond of? To mimic the style of your own comment, you shouldn't be allowed loose with a crayon, let alone a computer.
How can somebody be lawfully shot??!!!!
Another of this so-called police force should be heading to pokey!!