TOP 100 ENGLAND SITES
| |||
|
| |||
| |||
|
| |||
| Mark Saunders killed lawfully, jury finds Actions of marksmen who shot armed barrister after five-hour standoff were proportionate despite confused police operationAn alcoholic barrister who pointed his shotgun at police was lawfully killed when they opened fire in response, an inquest jury found today.Mark Saunders who was drunk and armed with a 12-bore shotgun, died when he was hit by five bullets after a five-hour standoff in London on the evening of 6 May 2008.At the conclusion of a two-and-a-half week inquest, a jury at Westminster coroner's court ruled the marksmen's lethal actions were lawful, proportionate and reasonable.The panel found fatal shots to the head, heart and liver were "likely" to be caused by police shots that were lawfully fired in "reasonable self-defence" at 9.32pm.The jury found that the policing operation had been confused, with a "lack of clarity" over who was responsible for frontline firearms officers. But it decided that the confusion had not contributed to the fatal outcome.It said more detailed consideration should have been given by police commanders at an early stage in the siege to using Saunders's wife, Elizabeth, or friend Michael Bradley to defuse the confrontation.Both of them asked to speak to the 32-year-old gunman – who also wanted to contact them – but they were told it was too dangerous and were asked to switch off their mobile phones.This was despite the fact that Saunders called Bradley at about 7pm. Elizabeth Saunders later found her husband had sent her a blank text message but her phone was off.The jury said it was not sure whether Saunders "deliberately and consciously" committed "suicide by cop" by using his shotgun to provoke police to shoot him.The inquest heard that the gunman said several times during the evening that he expected to die, but that he was extremely drunk and may have been in a fantasy world.Elizabeth Saunders sat with her head bowed and dabbed her eyes as the nine-to-two majority narrative verdict was returned.Addressing the Saunders family directly, the Westminster coroner, Dr Paul Knapman, said: "These have not been an easy three weeks for Mrs Saunders and the Saunders family."In fact it must have been an extraordinarily difficult period. I would just like to say, on behalf of us all I am sure, that they have our sympathy in a desperately sad situation."The coroner said he would write to the Metropolitan police to make at least one recommendation in light of the evidence heard at the inquest. He raised, in particular, the confusion about who was in charge of the police marksmen.Knapman said he would use his powers under rule 43 of the coroner's rules to highlight lessons that should be learned by police for the future.He said he would make copies of his recommendation available to the justice secretary, Kenneth Clarke, and the parties involved in the inquest.In a statement, Elizabeth Saunders said: "From the day Mark died I have been committed to ensuring that the circumstances of his death should be subjected to a thorough and independent investigation."I did not approach the process with any pre-determined conclusions and I respect the verdict of a jury who have carefully considered all the evidence."I spoke at length about Mark when I gave my evidence. He was a loving and much-loved husband, son, brother and friend."He is very much missed by all who knew and cared about him."She said she would not be making any further comment and thanked the media for its sensitivity during the inquest.A total of 59 firearms officers with more than 100 weapons surrounded the flat in Markham Square after Saunders fired through the kitchen window.He had 203 live rounds of shotgun ammunition and discharged eight shots during the siege. Six used cartridges were found in the kitchen and two in the dining room passageway.One of the seven marksmen who fired at Saunders said he did so because the barrister, who was hanging out the window, looked as if he was "ready to shoulder it [the gun] and take aim". Another firearms officer did not shoot because he said he could not justify it.The legally held shotgun found near Saunders's body was in the "broken" or "open" position, suggesting it could not have been fired at the time he was shot, the inquest heard.Elizabeth Saunders, also a barrister, had told the jury she believed she could have defused the situation if police had allowed her to speak to him on the phone. Saunders wrote notes pleading to speak to her and threatening to kill himself during the standoff.The jury was asked to consider seven key questions. They included whether Saunders could have committed "suicide by cop" and whether the fatal shot was fired "in necessary and reasonable self-defence or the defence of someone else".The coroner asked the jury to consider whether Saunders should have been allowed to speak to his wife or friend during the siege, and whether the refusal to allow that contributed to his death.Saunders, a family lawyer, had attended Alcoholics Anonymous and sought medical help for his drinking.Speaking after the verdict, a Crown Prosecution Service spokesman said: "In line with guidelines from the attorney general, the CPS always considers whether any significant new evidence has arisen from an inquest where someone has died after contact with the police."This case is no different, and we will be looking to see if any such evidence has emerged from the inquest into the death of Mark Saunders."Gun crimePoliceCrimeSam Jonesguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
List of axed quangos is published Ministers scrap nearly 200 quangos to improve accountability and cut costs - but Labour say the cull could end up costing more than it saves. bbc.co.uk |
Comprehensive spending review: We deserve an explanation. This wasn't it Osborne is an old hand at turning economic nonsense into political common sense, never more so than when justifying cutsHow would you seek to convince people that you need £81bn a year? George Osborne had an uphill task today: justifying to voters why he should make the biggest spending cuts since the 1920s. That would be tricky at any time, but especially now, with an economy as battered as this one. So what's an austerity chancellor to do?Well, Osborne is an old hand at using rhetorical alchemy to turn economic nonsense into political common sense. Yesterday, he tried three main tactics. The first was to pretend that Britain is just like any other family that "has run out of money" and needs to hunker down.As analogies go, that is both easy to understand and plain wrong. Countries are not households: if I run out of cash, I can't nip down to No 39 and levy an income tax. Nor can I pop up to the loft conversion and crank up my own currency printing press.The second trick that the chancellor pulled was to list all the organisations that backed his cuts: the IMF, the Bank of England, the CBI – and pretty much everyone else, short of the Royal Racing Pigeon Society.Rather than launch a serious justification of the case for cutting now, the chancellor went for a bit of upscale peer pressure. Never mind that the IMF urged Ireland into making spending cuts that look dangerously like an economic death-spiral. Ignore the fact that Mervyn King and the Bank were disastrously slow at spotting this crisis coming. Or that CBI member companies stand to make a fortune from all the public services that will be privatised. For the record, opponents of the cuts are numerous and illustrious too, starting with Nobel laureates such as Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz.Finally, the chancellor was deft in his use of numbers. When outlining a cut he recited a string of numbing numbers; whereas for any investment, however unremarkable, he unfurled long sentences. He spent almost as long detailing the upgrade of the A11 to Norwich as describing the pay cuts imposed on public sector workers.And while the coalition goes on about its willingness to deliver the bad news straight, it was striking how the chancellor kept switching his numbers. We got public spending adjusted for inflation, in cash terms, over every year between now and the end of parliament, or a single figure for 2014.Chancellors are politicians too, of course, and tax-and-spend policy is always a political decision as much an economic one. But a public about to suffer the biggest and most divisive spending cuts in decades deserves to hear a straightforward explanation why. We didn't get it today.Spending review 2010Tax and spendingGeorge OsborneEconomic policyPublic sector cutsPublic services policyPublic financeAditya Chakraborttyguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Iraq leak 'a gift for terrorists' The leak of US military logs suggesting troops in Iraq ignored evidence of torture is a "propaganda gift" for terrorists, William Hague says. bbc.co.uk |
Eye injury warning over Hallowe'en apple bobbing Hallowe'en enthusiasts were warned to take care when apple bobbing by an eye specialist who said injuries and infections can occur. telegraph.co.uk |