Boris Johnson's deputy faces damaging new allegations that he misled the public by claiming to be a magistrate
More...
Chelsea siege lawyer was shot three times by police marksmen
Robert Mendick and Justin Davenport, Evening Standard08.05.08
Chelsea siege barrister Mark Saunders was shot by police at least three times, it emerged today.
A post mortem revealed he suffered multiple gunshot wounds, including shots to the chest.
All the shots are believed to have been fired by police marksmen in response to blasts fired by the barrister from the windows of his Markham Square home.
It is not clear whether the shots that hit Mr Saunders were fired from the same gun.
The development came as Mr Saunders' father questioned why police had needed to shoot his son. Rodney Saunders said he did not believe the lawyer necessarily posed a lethal threat.
Asked if he thought his son might have killed someone, he said: "Put it this way, he didn't endanger anyone at all to my knowledge and we can only surmise what might have happened before the whole thing started.
"I just don't know. You would imagine that it will come out in the fullness of time. We will want answers." Mr Saunders, 64, added: "He was a warm and caring and loving son."
Speaking from her home in Alderley Edge, Cheshire, Mark's mother Rosemary said: "All we know is we've lost our son. What went wrong I just don't know."
During a five-hour stand-off on Tuesday Mr Saunders had fired a shotgun repeatedly at police and nearby houses from a window of the £2.2 million first-floor flat. Police marksmen returned fire.
At one point he shouted from the window: "I have been in the f***ing Army." Shortly after 9.30pm officers stormed the building, firing CS gas canisters and setting off stun grenades and distraction devices. It is understood no officers fired any bullets at this stage. They entered the flat to find the barrister fatally wounded. Investigators are examining the possibility that he wanted police to kill him in a "suicide by cop" scenario.
Earlier reports suggested the Oxford graduate, who was picked to be a divorce lawyer for TV presenter Chris Tarrant, suffered a breakdown after drinking heavily and having a row with wife Elizabeth Clarke, 40.
During the siege she was seen crying in the street. At one point Mr Saunders threw down a white cardboard box with the words "I love my wife dearly xxx" scrawled on it in black pen.
But the mother of Mr Saunders insisted Ms Clarke, who is also a barrister, was not at home and returned from QEB Chambers, where the couple worked, to find the police cordon in the square.
Mr Saunders had served in the Territorial Army with the Honourable Artillery Company, but left about five years ago. His father added: "I said, 'You want to get out of there or Tony Blair will ship you off to Iraq.' He was a bit fed up with what he was doing in the TA but also his workload had been increasing."
Mr Saunders had a licence for his shotgun and had it inspected by police after moving to the Square in October. Today one firearms expert questioned whether police needed to use lethal force.
The expert, who did not want to be named, said: "The police would have known they were dealing with a respectable chap, a barrister who had a licensed shotgun. A shotgun is only lethal over a range of up to 70 yards. You have to ask if they properly asked, 'Do we need to use lethal force?'"
However, police sources said the firearms team had no choice. One said: "He was firing directly at people and police officers and into houses. There were attempts to engage him by negotiators but these were not successful.
"This man was out of control and we could not predict what he would have done next."
Reports suggested Mr Saunders had psychological problems. Neighbours saw him two weeks ago rocking back and forth and crying in the street. Sources in the legal world said he was a "binge alcoholic" who suffered depression.
Link to:
Reader views (12)
Here's a sample of the latest views published. You can click view all to read all views that readers have sent in.
Quote:
The expert, who did not want to be named, said: "The police would have known they were dealing with a respectable chap, a barrister who had a licensed shotgun. A shotgun is only lethal over a range of up to 70 yards. You have to ask if they properly asked, 'Do we need to use lethal force?'"
I can understand why the so-called "expert" did not want to be named. The "respectable chap" was shooting at people and buildings, we are lucky nobody else was killed in this incident.
In my view the police did a good job.
- John Mitchell, nottingham, UK
Yes, because being a nice Oxford educated barrister means you should get a little leeway when you start firing a shotgun at people.
Facts are little skewed here; shotgun's are not immediately lethal at long-range, true. However, this does not negate their dangerousness. Although someone standing at a distance is unlikely to be hit with the full force of the blast, the pellets will still travel much further than 70 yards, albeit in a much wider spread. This is still, potentially, lethal.
Police may have a responsibility to people, suspects and the public alike, but they aren't paid to be shooting targets. Shoot at them and what do you expect? Unfortunately, since the Jean Charles de Menezes debacle, every armed incident will be subject to scrutiny after scrutiny.
Don't question the Police, they try their hardest to keep us safe and don't do too badly, most of the time, they're only human after all. Question why your son decided to shoot up a street.
- Jamie, Glasgow
So what if this individual came from a wealthy, Oxbridge educated background and enjoyed a highly successful legal career? Ultimately he was a deranged gunman endangering the public and the Police Officers in the line of duty. If he was military trained, as reported, then he would have known the dangers associated with firearms and be must held accountable for his actions. Thankfully no other innocent lives were lost in this tragedy.
- Palais, London, UK
