Morning:
14°c
The police marksmen who shot dead an armed barrister after a four and a half hour siege at his Chelsea home will not be charged over the killing.
The Crown Prosecution Service today said there was insufficient evidence to show the seven officers had not acted in genuine self-defence after Mark Saunders, 32, began firing a shotgun from the window of his £2.25 million home.
It added that police had a duty to protect the public in such circumstances, as well as a right to defend themselves, and that there was “no realistic prospect” of securing a successful murder or manslaughter conviction.
Mr Saunders, a successful divorce barrister who had been drinking during the siege in Markham Square on 6 May last year.
An inquest was told that the barrister had been shot at least five times in the head, heart and liver.
Mr Saunders had hit a house opposite with bullets from his shotgun as he roamed through his apartment in the three-storey Georgian terrace house.
Today's decision is likely to disappoint the barrister's family. His parents Rosemary and Rodney and sister Charlotte say negotiations should have continued saying Mr Saunders posed no threat to the public at the time.
The ruling will, however, be a relief to the Met, following its conviction over the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, and will help the force to rebut the claim of critics that its firearms officers can be too quick to shoot.
Sally Walsh, from the Crown Prosecution Service's Special Crime Division, said that she had examined the findings of an investigation into “these sad events” by the Independent Police Complaints Commission and had found “insufficient evidence” to justify charges.
She added: “In reaching my decision, I considered charges of murder, attempted murder and manslaughter against the officers who shot, and shot at, Mr Saunders.
"All of the officers have stated they were acting in self-defence or in defence of colleagues. It would be for the prosecution to prove that any officer was not acting in self-defence or defence of his fellow officers. I have
decided there is no realistic prospect of proving this beyond reasonable doubt.”
Ms Walsh also considered charges of gross negligence manslaughter, misconduct in public office and offences under the Health & Safety At Work Act but concluded that there was no realistic prospect of conviction.
She added: “We recognise this was a tragic incident and that Mr Saunders was in a distressed state at the time of his death but the police have a duty to protect the public and the right to defend themselves.”
The siege began after Mr Saunders, an Oxford graduate and former Territorial Army soldier, began shooting from the home he shared with his barrister wife Elizabeth, 40, after an afternoon
drinking.
Mr Saunders's widow responded to today's decision by saying that she hoped that a full inquest into her husband's death would now examine why it was necessary for police to take the fatal shots.
In a statement the Metropolitan Police said: “Any loss of life, no matter what the circumstances, is a tragedy. Our thoughts remain with the family of Mr Saunders.”
Reader views (24)
Extopcop, London - with that expressed level of dislike for your former job I'm not surprised you're an "ex-cop".
- Rogan, Irving
exphonycop,
the inquest did not show that he was not a threat to the police or public.
one can only wonder what your true motivations and connections are to make such claims?
- Scotty, london
Mistakes can sometimes happen as in the case of Jean Charles de Menezes which was pretty unfortunate. But I and others will rather have a police force that goes all out to protect us. We were very lucky no one was hurt in this case.Trying to reason with a man who is shooting into the midst of people in the street .. I am glad they did not wait too long. I am sorry for his family but where it is 1 life for that of 1 or more, I believe the protection of the ones in danger should come first in this case - the public.
- Bellamay, London
As an ex police officer, I am appalled by some of the posts on the is story, prepared to support the police no matter what they have done. This is an absolutely outrageous decision, but not in the least unexpected. These 'brave' officers were not in any personal danger, nor were the public - that was demonstrated clearly at the inquest. The Saunders family should now pursue the Met and these officers relentlessly through the civil courts where a different level of proof applies. On 'the balance of probabilities' they should win. They should also sue each officer as an individual for malfeasance in public office and go for their jobs and pensions.
- Extopcop, London
Is anyone surprised?
- Kerry, Purley
OK, can we stop this about Jean Charles de Menezes. He was NOT an illegal immigrant, he was in the UK legally at the time he was killed.
From the inquiry transcript (September 22nd 2008, page 51, lines 24-25, Page 52, lines 1-12), Sir Michael Wright said,
"He (JCdM) actually arrived in the UK on 13/03/02, and he was initially admitted as a visitor for a 6 month period. At the end of that period he was given permission to stay for a course of study until 30/06/03. It appears that he then left the UK at some stage, but the detail, where he went and so forth are not entirely clear so I will not trouble you with them."
Sir Michael continues,
"We know, however, that on 23/04/05 he travelled from Paris to Dublin and then returned to the UK and on the 22/07/05, HE WAS LAWFULLY IN THE UNITED KINGDOM. This was a question gone into fully at the criminal trial last November, and was established."
(capitalisation mine)
Anyone that has publically said otherwise, feel free to apologise likewise.
In the case of Mr Saunders the officers acted appropriately, however, every discharge of a firearm by a police officer should be investigated to uphold standards and reassure potential future candidates that there is a process that protects them if thety act responsibly as well as punishes.
- Escobar Alop-Lop, Camden County
Charlie Jordan, I am well aware that two wrongs don't make a right,but had Jean de Menezes not been in the UK illegally ?
- Michael, London
NOPE Mike, He was in fact here perfectly legally. You and earlier I were, I'm afraid, victims of government/porcine spin.
Hey Ho!
- Steve, Brentford
Again, the need for a long-range, non-lethal form of intervention is highlighted. We can position satellites in space to within yards, but cannot non-lethally take out a drunken and disoriented person from 200 yards. Some lucky inventor should make their name and a fortune here.
Also, why is there not a single hardened police vehicle with a 360 turret capable of aiming tear-gas rounds through upstairs windows? This is not high-tech stuff.
No one should blame operational police for the unsatisfactory situation here; they must be as upset as anybody else, probably more. But this is a good result for nobody, and didn't have to happen.
- Mdj E10, london uk
If you play or threaten people with guns then you have to put up with whatever is comming to you. As to comments about Menzes, an illegal immigrant behaving irresponsibly, at a very difficult time, sorry but... I guess none of the comments made by the bloggers have ever had to take such a decision. If they had been in such a position mu guess is they would "wet their knickers" and done nothing. People that have to take snap decisions do make mistakes and as individuals shoulder their decision for the rest of their lives. There was a time when murder of a policeman was a capital offence, many think this should return. The public should support the Force.
- Nigel Rush, Paris France
Charlie Jordan, I am well aware that two wrongs don't make a right,but had Jean de Menezes not been in the UK illegally ?
- Michael, London
A sensible decision taken in the cold light of day but if I was one of those firearm officers I would be slightly annoyed by the comments "there is insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of a conviction against any of these officers for any of these offences". They were simply doing their job protecting their colleagues and the public from a deranged individual firing a gun.
- Mike, Herts
If you point a shotgun or any gun at armed officers you are going to get hurt/killed......full stop
- Rsaviour, lonodn england
Charlie Jordan, would you like all firearms officers who have to shoot up on murder charges if that happens then you will see a distince lack of firearms officers.
When would it be acceptable for the police to shoot someone when they shoot and kill a memeber of the public maybe. He got shot because he posed a very serious danger to the public and after many hours of negatiation he still refused to comply with any request.
- Steven Jones, london
I honestly believe that all IPCC and MPA members and the bleeding heart liberals should be made to go out in an immediate response Police Car on a Friday or Saturday night in Central London.
How can anybody sit in judgement when they have no idea whatsoever of the pressure and situations Police Officers are confronted with on a daily basis?
Training is a good thing, but reality is a whole different ball game, think how you wo