Morning:
12°c
Mark wasn't aiming at police when they shot him says mother
Robert Mendick, Chief Reporter09.09.08
The barrister shot dead by police in the Chelsea siege was holding his shotgun "limply" and was not aiming it at firearms officers when he was killed, his mother has said.
The claim - on the eve of a landmark legal action - appears to contradict the official version of events. Senior police sources have insisted Mark Saunders was aiming at marksmen when he was shot at least five times at his £2.2 million home in Markham Square, yards from the King's Road in Chelsea.
But Mr Saunders's mother Rosemary, speaking exclusively to the Evening Standard, insisted that her son did not pose an imminent threat to Scotland Yard officers.
A police video of the shooting, seen by her solicitor and members of her family, appeared to show Mr Saunders loosely holding his shotgun in his left hand, she said. Her son could not have been firing at officers - not least because he was right handed, Mrs Saunders added.
The family contends that 32-year-old Mr Saunders, a brilliant divorce lawyer tipped as a future High Court judge, had not opened fire for at least 20 minutes to half an hour before his death on 6 May. He had been shooting into his neighbour's garden earlier in the afternoon, prompting the stand-off with police.
Mrs Saunders, who lives in Alderley Edge, Cheshire, told the Standard: "Our understanding is he [Mark] was simply not aiming at the police at that point.
"He was holding the gun limply in his left hand and was not looking or aiming at anybody. He was right-handed. He didn't have hostages; he was not making demands; he was not attempting to leave the flat and the area around it had been secured. So who exactly was at risk at the point he was shot? It is a mystery to me."
The video footage is expected to form a key piece of evidence in a legal action brought by Mr Saunders's youngest sister Charlotte, which begins at the High Court tomorrow.
Ms Saunders, 26, will go to the High Court to try to prove the inquiry into the incident by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which investigates police shootings, is unlawful.
Mr Saunders, an Oxford graduate and former officer in the Territorial Army, was shot after a five-hour siege at the flat which he had only recently bought with his wife Elizabeth, 40, a fellow divorce barrister who worked at the same chambers.
Scotland Yard sources have suggested that Mr Saunders had been drinking all day and was "unpredictable'' and that firearms officers felt they were left with no choice other than to shoot him.
A source insisted that officers only opened fire when Mr Saunders aimed his shotgun in their direction. "They believed they were at risk," the source said. A Metropolitan Police spokesman said he could not comment on the claims while an inquiry into the shooting conducted by the IPCC was ongoing.
But Ms Saunders told today how she is losing faith in the investigation because, after four months, not a single officer involved in the shooting has been interviewed by the IPCC.
She claims the IPCC practice of allowing police officers involved in a fatal shooting to confer with one another before giving their account of events breaches the European Convention on Human Rights.
Ms Saunders said: "In these circumstances, how can we be assured that the officers' written statements are an accurate and uninfluenced account of their thought processes when they pulled the trigger?
"I do not understand why not one of the officers who shot Mark has been interviewed by the investigators, four months after his death.
"I feel this goes against any course of natural justice."
An IPCC spokesman said its investigation was not affected by the police officers conferring before making notes - even though the organisation has called on three separate occasions for the practice of allowing officers to confer-to be ended. It first recommended its discontinuation after the death of Harry Stanley, who was shot dead by police in Hackney in 1999 by officers who mistook a table leg he was holding in a bag for a gun.
The call was repeated in the wake of the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, the innocent Brazilian shot at Stockwell Tube station by anti-terrorism officers who thought he was a suicide bomber.
Then in July, the IPCC again called for the practice to stop, saying it generated "concern and suspicion ... amongst bereaved families and many members of the wider public".
A preliminary inquest hearing at Westminster coroner's court in May was told that Mr Saunders was shot in the head, the heart and the liver and the bullets were fired from several police weapons.
A coroner's officer said that the inquest, which was scheduled to resume today, will be adjourned, and no date has been set for its resumption.
Reader views (39)
"He had time after the arrival of the police to surrender. He failed. He paid the price that he brought on himself."
.....err Butch, I had no idea that it was an offence punishable by death not to surrender to the police. Thanks for letting me know that the police have powers way beyond that of any Court.
- Harold, London, London
This does not add up.
The guy was not roaming the streets. He had stayed in his flat and was not trying to leave it.
Were there really any members of the public still in the line of fire after 5 hours?. If so, why had they not been removed to a safe place by then.
Similarly, what were the police doing putting themselves in the line of fire (if that is what they had actually done). More likely they were out of range: - what is the effective range of a shot gun (100 metres?).
No wonder the police feel more comfortable conferring before they submit witness statements. It is not obvious how a case of immediate danager to anyone can be made out.
If I am ever questioned by the police, what are my chances of conferring with all other witnesses before giving a statement? None I would suspect. Now why would that be, could it be that the truth is more likely to come out if people don't have the chance to get their stories straight?
- Harry, London, London
Face coverings are to protect the identity of the personnel as they would make attarctive targets for some and it means they can work undercover, etc.
He was a clear and present danger. He crossed the line and had to be put down.
'Immediate danger'? When he is shooting directly at someone perhaps? Or after he has killed a member of the public?
He had time after the arrival of the police to surrender. He failed. He paid the price that he brought on himself.
- Butch, London, UK
I have a curious feeling that many of the people who are posting are policemen. Would they like to declare themselves ?
-We do not licence our police to kill. This case raises worrying issues.
- Clive Allen, Brighton, UK
Maybe it's because I'm from different cultural background, but I just fail to understand HOW the family could be blaming the police for what happened in this case. If the same happened in my country, the family will be more ashamed than anything... their son was posing a great risk to the innocent public!(OK, parents can't be responsible for their fully grown children's actions, I know that. And I'm not saying that they should be ashamed...but it is also true that they are who and what they are PARTIALLY because of your upbringing and influence)
"He wasn't aiming at police" SO WHAT???
Just how long does this woman expect the police to wait before they take action?
There are too many rich people here in this country lacking the common sense and the courtesy to others. And the sad fact is, there seems to be 2 sets of laws/rules in UK, one for the poor, one for the riches.
- Lucy, Devon
This family are in massive denial. The bottom line is that this man was acting erratically in public whilst holding a gun. He might well have been a 'brilliant lawyer' but that doesn't mean that his life was more important than those of innocent people in the area. the police and marksmen were right in dealing with this in the way that they did.
- Lorna, London
I am a firearms expert, and no, the police did not act appropiately. In my view they shot a man who was not an immediate threat to anyone. I also ask why the police tactical firearms unit are wearing face-coverings ? This is supposed to be the British Police, - not some South American death squad.
- Keith Dehaverland, London, UK
Its absolutely,totally irrelevant how he was holding his gun.He was at loose in a densely populated area,and not in possession of his proper mental faculties.His family's pride is understandably wounded,but the police action was vital and necessary and I support it.His family have to live with it.Further loss of life was avoided.Be grateful.
- John Bennett, Exeter,Devon
As the police have shot dead a poor bloke simply carrying a chair leg, an innocent Brazilian electrician on the Underground and a friend recently told me they shot dead some mentally disturbed chap waving a samurai sword above his head on a deserted motorway verge in Lincolnshire (a threat to nobody) - Id say our police are a bit trigger-happy and if they are ever allowed to carry arms as a routine - the public will be in more danger than the criminals.
- William Boreham, mitcham uk
The police should sue his estate as he was very wealthy, for all the cost's incurred by the Met that he caused.
- P I Staker, London
With a few honourable exceptions, the majority of posts on this item seem to assume that the Police can do no wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Police in this case had a duty of care, not only to the public but also to Mark Saunders. They should have had strategies in place to bring this to a non-lethal conclusion. We will hear more of this case.
- Exmetseniorofficer, London
Sorry, the point it he was holding a gun and was threatening innocent people. In America, if you point a gun at the police you are going to die, everyone knows this, what did he think would happen? If its a suspect verse the safety of the public, it should be the suspect who gets shot and killed not a policeman or citizen.
- H, ALexandria, VA
I can understand that the parents, and extended family must feel upset about what has happened to their son, and they are anxious to find someone to blame. However, had the victim not been a barrister, and instead held a less attractive postion, and lived in a less affluent part of London. I have no doubt in my mind that he not only would have been shot without delay by the Police, but it is highly unlikely that we would even be having this debate. This matter would most likely be portrayed by the media, as another case of 'gun crime' on the streets of London. Let the Police do their job, they are not perfect, but let's not give puny excuses for people who put the lives of others in danger, be they intoxicated or not!
- Nigel-Paul Brissett, London, United Kingdom
I think there are 2 issues here, which are getting confused: firstly, the issue of whether or not this man should have been shot by the police and secondly, whether the police should be allowed to confer before giving individual statements to the ensuing enquiry. The first is irrelevant in deciding the second.
The Police should NOT be allowed to confer before giving statements: such methods leave an open question mark over their professionalism. We should be grateful to this family for raising this obvious issue on our behalves - irrespective of their reasons for doing it. The police should be properly accountable: if there perform their duties properly they should have no problem with this.
- Roz, Chamonix, France
Phil Jones, do you think someone cannot fire a gun when tear gas is used, get real, they are more likely to use a gun in that situation. As for his parents, they probably feel guilty and are trying to blame the police for his death, anybody but themselves.
- Pat, Essex
Can't say I'm surprised, the bizzies can blow the head of an innocent man with impunity, they are hardly liked to be deterred by a nutter with a shotgun. Give them the opportunity they will Tazer you for parking on a yellow line!!!!
- Kerry Trubee, purley
Two things
1. They are wearing masks as they are quite likely to work undercover and are obviously aware of the massive media attention a operation like this will attract.
2. Being shot several times at the same time would suggest that several officers felt an immediate threat at the same time. Like raising a weapon.
And one final thing tear gas wouldn't have done anything to a man in this mental state, in fact all it would have done is forced officers closer to the scene and placed them in more danger
- Stuart, Luton, UK
He volunteered for what happened, I feel sorry for the officer who had to shoot him.
- Garry, London
I live in Chelsea and was sandwiched between the BBC and Skynews when, at 9.00pm we all heard the final shots that put an end to --- a FOUR HOUR SIEGE ---. Hardly the 'heat of the moment' stuff. He had time to sober up and surrender by then. Guns were on DISPLAY in a cabinet in the livingroom. The family knew he was an alcoholic. THEY have questions to answer, more so than the police, as far as I'm concerned.
Although, I do honestly feel this came to a tragic end and it's a pity Mark couldn't seek help earlier and confide in someone. But the police did the best they could with the knowledge they had on the day. I don't know what my fellow Chelsea resident is talking about saying she felt in fear of the police. She's talking through her hat! What about the child whose window he shot into and the police who had shots fired at them in the same room? That's something to fear - and act on.
- Bernice, Chelsea, London
The other Sarah from London who says "residents were more at risk from police and media helicopters"
You're having a laugh aren't you? do you really live in Chelsea as if you do and were home at the time then you would have realised how serious the situation was...cannot believe you made such a stupid comment
- Sarah, London
Typical, a well connected, well funded campaign kicks off because the family are determined in their grief to hold "the authorities" responsible for their relative's behaviour & subsequent death at the hands of the police.
There is of course a huge elephant in the corner-namely the implication that by virtue of his address, education, job etc that the victim was a decent chap, not really a threat to anyone & should have been treated differently to say a similarly armed recidivist a gang member from a sink estate.
I disagree. I would have thought that potentially getting shot by armed police was an occupational hazard of firing off shotguns in public irrespective of background and/or location. It would appear that the victim was going through some form of crisis- perhaps if anyone should experience guilt, it is the victims nearest & dearest who were obviously far too self absorbed or blind to see the danger signals or perhaps wary of social embarrassment/stigma to intervene.
- Adrian Sandbach, London, UK
It might be repeating previous points.
How on earth are the police meant to know he is right or left handed.
The family contend he is holding the shotgun limply. He is still holding it and could easily snap the gun into a firing position. My guess it would take a fraction of a second to fire off a round even from a limp position
He had already fired several times into the local area endangering the local residents. He had refused all entreatments to surrender his weapon so the police HAD to contend that we was hostile and sadly for the family put the worst gloss on any action.
As to the chelski resident complaining about the presence of police helicopters. tell you what next time there is an armed seige in your area lets have the police not turn up and see what you complain about then.
Having said all that it doesn't help the police when they let the witnesses confer and wait four months before interviewing them. Its sad but these days many people are willing to believe the worst of the police so its in their best interest to move this enquiry forward with all speed.
From the evidence we have seen so far its a sad loss for the family but if you start shooting up parts of London do not be amazed if the police regard this as a hostile act and eventually shoot you.
- Sue, Hackney
This family are simply not living in the real world!
If somebody had been killed because of his actions the police would be sued for not doing enough. It is ludicrous to think you can wander around ANY part of London shooting at will without the strongest of re-actions.
You live by the sword, you die by the sword. Or are there different rules for the wealthy?
- Frank, Home Counties, England.
I feel sad that a life was lost however if you have an armed person then the police need to use sufficient force to protect themselves and others who may be injured and in this case the fact that he wouldn't put down the weapon meant they "had" to use their weapons against him.
- Mike Melbourne, Bedford
No matter what career prospects this unfortunate man's family and their representatives now claim he had, he was brandishing a firearm in a public place and had fired it on more than one occasion. If an innocent member of the public had been killed, the police would have been castigated. The litigation gives the impression of being a desperate attempt by the family to find someone to blame for the death, in this case brave police officers, who put their own lives at risk. As others have pointed out, if this incident had involved a less well connected resident on one of the local authority estates in London, no one would suggest that the police could or should have acted in any other way
- Max Parker, London
Another case of the police living out their SAS fantasies. Why are some of them wearing masks and why have you have you blanked out their faces - they are police officers not spies.
- Tony Miller, London, England
The police couldn't win in this situation, they killed a man who had already been firing at others, so the police get the blame, had the police done nothing and a member of the public been killed the police would still have got the blame, I'm sorry but this man had been given the chance to hand himself in and he didn't, its no one else fault but his, its sad for those left behind though
- Fiona, London
Maybe he wasn't aiming directly, but he was brandishing a gun for goodness sake! What do you expect!
- Ken Joralemon, london, UK
He was armed and in a fragile state of mind. He was asked to drop the weapon and didn't. There have been reports that the weapon was fired into windows and pointed at other people. The police took the decision to protect the wider public - end of story. I fail to understand why people are still banging on about this tragic incident.
- Huw Morgan, London
If this idiot had shot a member of the public then the police would have been vilified for that too - they can't win whatever they do. As far as I'm concerned, if you wave a gun around in front of armed police you should expect everything you get.
- The Gene Genie, Croydon
I live within range of this man and was walking my dog nearby when it happened. I am very glad the police did the responsible thing and shot him. I can understand that the family are upset, but they must live with the consequences of his actions.
Had the police not been forced to take decisive action innocent residents could have been killed. If that had happen the public would now be complaining that the police SHOULD have shot him.
- Clare, London
If this had been some inner-city council estate, no-one would have been bothered that he had been shot by the police. Just because he was a Lawyer living in Chelsea does not give his family the right to say that the police should not have shot him or that they should have been allowed in to talk to him. He shot at people and into their homes and was given plenty of opportunity to put down his weapon and come out, which he chose not to do. I don't think the police had any alternative than to shoot him and that the family should accept that this happened as a direct consequence of their son/brothers actions, rather than trying to blame the police.
- Emmy, London
I agree with all the comments to far - the armed man had already fired and the Police were doing what they are paid to do - protect the public. I am sorry for this man's family, but at the end of the day the Police had no choice - they perceived a mortal threat to others and dealt with it.
- Shirley, London
The Metropolitan Police have never explained why they didn't use tear gas, the most sensible solution to get someone holed-up to leave the hole. It was the obvious solution, and is used by all other police forces in such situations. Do the Metropolitan Police even have tear gas? I never see it mentioned. Probably an EU Directive says that tear gas is an unjustified intrusion on a sniper's human rights.
- Phil Jones, London UK
An armed man firing a shotgun in a built up inner city residential area, is told to put down his weapon by armed police and given a long opportunity to comply he does not, is then shot. Whilst this is a sad loss of life, why is it that the police's actions are seen as totally unreasonable? If he had been waving a stick then it may have been unreasonable, but this was a real shotgun and he had discharged it into peoples homes without warning, it can only be good fortune no one else was injured or killed? Whilst there should be an enquiry,and there will be a full inquest. Lets not put the police in a position that they are prevented from taking the necessary actions to safeguard us the public from gunmen firing shotguns in the street.
- Dave, Wanstead
As Chelsea residents, we heard the final gunshots and felt quite ill when we learned that they were the fatal shots.
We were more at risk from the many police and media helicopters hovering over the area for the whole afternoon/evening.
Condolences to the family.
- Sarah, London
I live in Chelsea and sorry to say this but that young man had already been shooting and was a danger to residents...if he had lived on one of the council estates in Chelsea they're wouldn't be so much about it and as for the police they stood around long enough giving this guy the chance to hand over his gun but he didn't. I'm sorry for the family's loss but what were the police supposed to do...it's their job to protect the public and that's what they did.
- Sarah, London
And I suppose the police should know that he was right handed?
- Paul, London
I feel deeply sorry for this family, but what they are asking is that police in an armed situation should give the benefit of the doubt to the armed man, sorry to say had I been in the vicinity of this flat I would have expected the police to do exactly what they did do. And so I suspect would this family in fact I suspect they would have sued had the police not acted on their behalf to keep them safe.
- Pat, sussex
