| Mark Saunders jury told to be 'dispassionate' Coroner lists seven points panel must consider before reaching verdict over barrister's killing by police snipers after siegeA jury was asked to "put emotion to one side" today as they consider seven key questions over the death of the barrister Mark Saunders, shot by armed police after a siege at his London home.The Westminster coroner Dr Paul Knapman told the six women and five men they must be "dispassionate" when deciding how the divorce lawyer, who was armed with a shotgun, came by his death.The 32-year-old, who was very drunk, died of multiple gunshot wounds after a five-hour siege at his Chelsea flat on 6 May 2008 after a solitary drinking binge.Seven Scotland Yard CO19 firearms officers who shot at him said they believed he was aiming at them or colleagues. Five bullets hit Saunders, three causing fatal wounds, to the head, heart and liver.In respect of the three shots that killed him, Knapman said the jury must decide whether they "consider it is established as likely" that the fatal wound "was caused by a shot which was lawfully fired, ie in necessary and reasonable self-defence or the defence of someone else".The 11 must also consider whether Saunders could have committed "suicide by cop" . Had it been established on evidence so that they are sure, that the lawyer "deliberately and consciously took steps with a shotgun as shown on the film at 9.32pm with the intention of causing police officers to shoot and kill him because it was his wish that he should be killed by them".The coroner turned next to whether Saunders should have been allowed to speak to his wife, Elizabeth, or friend, barrister Michael Bradley, during the siege. The jury had to consider whether it had been established as likely that "more detailed consideration should have been given at an early stage to enable contact to take place between Michael Bradley and/or Elizabeth Saunders and the deceased."If their answer to that was "yes", added Knapman, they had to consider whether it was "likely that those circumstances made some contribution to the cause of his death".Of the police operation on the night, the jury must consider who was in charge of the police snipers at the time. Had it been established as likely that "there was lack of clarity between the role of firearms tactical adviser and firearms bronze commander." If so, was it established as likely that "this made some contribution to the cause of his death," added Knapman.Finally, they must consider whether, after Saunders shot out his kitchen window at 9.09pm that night "insufficient weight" was given to him being a "special population group" – someone vulnerable through alcohol or drugs – "with regard to the nature, proximity and numbers of the police containment". If so, was it established as likely that those circumstances made some contribution to the cause of his death, said Knapman.Summing up evidence heard over the three-week inquest, the coroner said: "Some of the evidence of the case was disturbing and upsetting. You are dealing with the death of a young man who has left behind a wife, family and friends. But it is important that you do not allow yourself to be influenced by sympathy in any direction or by emotion or sadness.""Put emotion to one side to decide the issues dispassionately."He added: "Beware also of the advantage of hindsight." They had had the advantage of seeing the lawyer's last moments on film in slow motion."It wasn't like that at the time. Events happened much more quickly in intense, difficult, frightening and unpredictable circumstances. Do not lose sight of that," said Knapman.The jury heard for a killing to be lawful it was necessary that it was in self-defence or in the defence of others, and that the force used was "reasonable and proportionate".The case continues.Gun crimeCaroline Daviesguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
7/7 inquests: minute's silence held for victims of London bombings The inquests into the 7/7 bombings have got under way at the Royal Courts of Justice in London with a minute's silence for those who died telegraph.co.uk |
How can enlightened societies have institutionalised policies of race profiling? | Jesse Jackson The UK's use of police powers against black people is ugly and immoralThe use of police powers against black people in Britain is astonishing to me. Racial profiling is deeply rooted in ignorance and fear and hatred, which lead to violence.It's not just the personal humiliation of being stopped; it's when these fears become institutionalised and accepted by government and the media and cultural policies.The root of the crisis in Germany that led to the second world war was race profiling; if you were other than the superior race, you were profiled. It's always ugly and immoral. In America they have built a whole industry around profiling people around colour. It's called "driving while black".The US and Britain are both enlightened societies, with some of the best universities in the world. How can societies so enlightened have such institutionalised policies of race auditing and race profiling? If just one individual was involved, then that would be a problem, but this enormous disparity shows it is institutionalised.Sometimes it is race, sometimes it is gender, sometimes it is religion, but categories of people are being targeted. We decry youth bullying in school because it is so unkind, but this profiling is bullying.It undermines the promises of democracy, equal access and equal opportunity. In Britain it must be a matter of changing behaviour and then changing attitude.Not only are you more likely to be stopped by the police but also more likely to be denied access to education and access to a job, access to capital and industry and technology.Look at Cambridge and Oxford university, look at the ethnic breakdown, and you can see polarisation there that's not based on the distribution of brains but the distribution of privilege and resources.You should not limit the market based on race, which is what profiling does, it creates a polarisation based upon privilege rather than merit.I am coming to London to show the hope of us living together, and the dangers of us living apart. Given the German experiences, the South African experience and the American segregation experience, we ought to know better by now. We have globalised capital and now we must globalise human rights.PoliceRace issuesJesse Jacksonguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Celtic 1-3 Rangers Rangers come from behind to win the season's first Old Firm derby at Celtic Park and move three points clear at the top of the Scottish Premier League. news.bbc.co.uk |
Cost of EU agencies triples to more than £2 billion The cost of funding European Union committees and agencies has more than tripled since 2005 and is on course to reach more than £2 billion next year, new research shows. telegraph.co.uk |