This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/england/london/7607481.stm

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
Review into lawyer shot by police Review of police lawyer shooting
(about 2 hours later)
A judicial review into aspects of the death of a lawyer shot dead by police in London is to open at the High Court. Allowing firearms officers to confer after the shooting of barrister Mark Saunders raised the possibility of collusion, the High Court has heard.
Mark Saunders, 32, was shot after a siege during which he fired at police from his £2m house in Chelsea. Mr Saunders, 32, was shot after a siege in May during which he fired at police from his house in Chelsea, west London.
The review will consider whether the practice of allowing officers to confer before making statements should be allowed to continue. His family wants the judicial review to rule the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) investigation broke human rights laws.
His sister Charlotte Saunders said: "I have to question whether it was necessary to kill my brother." The family also claims the IPCC failed to give sufficient information to them.
Mr Saunders was shot by police at least five times at his house on Markham Square on 6 May, following a five-and-a-half hour stand-off. Tim Owen QC, representing Mr Saunders' sister Charlotte, told the court the issue was "whether the hitherto practice of permitting police officers to confer before and during the recording of their accounts" of the incident is compatible with human rights laws.
Human rights breach Unlawful failure
He was said to have been depressed over difficulties with his marriage. He said: "The officers were not separated before their accounts were given and there was a delay in providing initial statements."
In May, a preliminary inquest hearing at Westminster Coroner's Court heard he was shot in the head, the heart and the liver. He said the IPCC had provided further opportunity to confer by organising meetings attended by groups of officers to put the questions to them.
Ms Saunders is hoping the High Court review will prove the inquiry into the incident by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is unlawful.The officers involved have not been interviewed Miss Saunders and her family are also seeking a declaration from Mr Justice Underhill that there has been an unlawful failure to disclose sufficient information about the investigation.
She said the practice of allowing police officers to confer before making statements breaches the European Convention on Human Rights. The IPCC practice of allowing officers to confer was agreed with the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) and is contained in the Acpo Manual of Guidance on the Police Use of Firearms.
Article 2 of the convention requires that investigations into killings by police are investigated effectively, and she says allowing them to confer contaminates evidence. The officers involved have not been interviewed
Ms Saunders will also argue that she is entitled to more information on the shooting than she has received so far. Mr Owen said the IPCC will argue at the hearing that until Acpo gives a direction to change the practice, it can do nothing.
Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, she said: "Immediately after his 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. But he added: "The IPCC is invested with sufficient powers to make a direction to the police authority to reverse the current practice to achieve a different approach which is capable of being compatible."
Four months on we still don't know what was in the minds of the officers who killed my brother Charlotte Saunders Mr Saunders, 32, died of multiple bullet wounds. A preliminary inquest heard he was shot in the head, the heart and the liver.
As the siege unfolded, Mr Saunders threw a message to his wife, Elizabeth, from a window, suggesting a row between the couple may have sparked the incident.
I have to question whether it was necessary to kill my brother Charlotte Saunders
Earlier, Ms Saunders told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I have to question whether it was necessary to kill my brother."
"Immediately after his 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.
"So 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?"So 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?
"Four months on we still don't know what was in the minds of the officers who killed my brother."Four months on we still don't know what was in the minds of the officers who killed my brother.
"We have had very little information from the IPCC. What information we have got is from the press, so we know as much as anyone else.""We have had very little information from the IPCC. What information we have got is from the press, so we know as much as anyone else."
Speaking about the practice of allowing officers to confer, she said: "These men have not been interviewed to date.
"All they've 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's acceptable when my brother's life has been taken, or any man's life has been taken."
The IPCC has itself called on three separate occasions for the practice of allowing officers to confer to be ended.The IPCC has itself called on three separate occasions for the practice of allowing officers to confer to be ended.