Afternoon:
10°c
'Gun police colluded over barrister's siege death'
Robert Mendick, Chief Reporter10 Sep 2008
Scotland Yard firearms officers colluded over statements given to investigators following the shooting of an armed barrister in the Chelsea siege, the High Court heard today.
The sister of Mark Saunders, a highflying divorce lawyer, also questioned why her brother was shot dead at the end of a five-hour stand-off.
Charlotte Saunders's attack - in which she claimed her brother had posed no imminent threat - came before a groundbreaking hearing today.
Mr Justice Underhill is being asked to rule that the Independent Police Complaints Commission's investigation into Mr Saunders's death is unlawful.
Tim Owen, QC, acting for the family, told the court that allowing police to confer before making written statements risked their evidence being tainted.
Mr Owen said: "It is calculated to produce evidence that is tainted by the obvious risk of collusion. And even if it isn't tainted, in reality it will be unreliable since it will be a product of contamination of one witness giving information to another person where the likelihood is their account will be affected by what another one says."
Mr Owen added: "There can be no doubt that the present practice means that there is a substantial risk of collusion and of contamination.
"On the fact of the claimants' case the risk is substantial. The officers were not separated before their accounts were obtained. The opportunity to confer and therefore the risk of collusion was increased by a number of events."
The court heard how officers submitted their separate written statements on 8 May, two days after Mr Saunders, 32, was killed. Further clarification was sought by the IPCC on 19 June but has still to be received.
Ms Saunders, 26, who is bringing the case under the Human Rights Act, sat tearfully in court with her mother, Rosemary, from Cheshire, beside her.
Before the hearing Ms Saunders said: "Immediately after the first shot the police were called and the area evacuated so there was no risk to the public. He was on his own, he had no hostage and made no demands.
"Over the course of four or five hours with all the police training and technology, was there really no non-lethal method to overcome him. We still don't know what was in the mind of the officers who killed my brother.
"These men (police firearms officers) have not been interviewed today. All they have had to do is write a statement which they have had opportunity to be contaminated, to be influenced by another source, and I don't really think that is acceptable when my brother's life has been taken. I have to question whether it was necessary to kill my brother."
It is still not clear what prompted Mr Saunders to begin shooting.
The hearing continues.
