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/7663014.stm

The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
IPCC probe into killing lawful Probe into lawyer killing lawful
(about 1 hour later)
The police investigation into the killing of a barrister shot dead by police during a five-hour armed siege was lawful, the High Court has ruled. An independent inquiry into the killing of a barrister shot dead by police during a five-hour armed siege was lawful, the High Court has ruled.
A judge dismissed a claim by the family of Mark Saunders, 32, that the police inquiry into his death was unlawful. A judge dismissed a claim by the family of Mark Saunders, 32, that the probe into his death was unlawful.
Mr Saunders died in a stand-off at his flat in Chelsea, west London in May.Mr Saunders died in a stand-off at his flat in Chelsea, west London in May.
His family claimed the Independent Police Complaints Commission inquiry was unlawful as officers were allowed to confer before making statements. His family said the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPPC) inquiry was unlawful as officers were allowed to confer before making statements.
The IPCC said it welcomed the High Court's judgement.
"The IPCC agrees with Mr Saunders' family that the way officers currently confer after a fatal shooting does not provide best evidence or secure public confidence and should change," said an IPCC spokesman.
"We differed only on how that change should be achieved."
During the siege Mr Saunders fired at police officers, neighbours and buildings with a legally-owned shotgun from his £2.2m home in Markham Square.During the siege Mr Saunders fired at police officers, neighbours and buildings with a legally-owned shotgun from his £2.2m home in Markham Square.
Conferring is not colluding. To suggest otherwise is as insulting as it is inaccurate Paul Davis, Police Federation Charlotte Saunders: 'The balance of power seems wrong to me'
A post-mortem examination revealed that he died from multiple injuries.A post-mortem examination revealed that he died from multiple injuries.
His family believe he posed no risk to the public when he was shot, as the area had been evacuated. His family believes he posed no risk to the public when he was shot, as the area had been evacuated.
Mr Saunders' sister Charlotte brought the case to the High Court. Mr Saunders' sister Charlotte said: "I brought these proceedings because I was concerned that the police officers who shot Mark were allowed to confer before giving their accounts to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)."
"I brought these proceedings because I was concerned that the police officers who shot Mark were allowed to confer before giving their accounts to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)," she said. The police denied the family's central claim that conferring mounted to collusion.
But the police denied the family's central claim that conferring mounted to collusion. 'Insulting, inaccurate'
"Conferring is not colluding," said Paul Davis from the Police Federation. "Conferring is not colluding," said Paul Davis, of the Police Federation.
"To suggest otherwise is as insulting as it is inaccurate and does nothing to reassure members of the public that the police are there to defend and protect them. There is a huge difference between colluding and conferring.""To suggest otherwise is as insulting as it is inaccurate and does nothing to reassure members of the public that the police are there to defend and protect them. There is a huge difference between colluding and conferring."
Ms Saunders said she would be appealing against the High Court's ruling. BBC crime reporter Ben Ando said the judge's action in granting the Saunders family leave to appeal could suggest he believed the issue should be addressed in a higher court.
Paul Davis of the Police Federation: 'Judgement a victory for common sense'
Mr Ando said Mr Justice Underhill acknowledged that permitting officers to collaborate meant "the opportunity for collusion is, so to speak, institutionalised".
The judge also said the practice of allowing officers to collaborate in giving their first accounts was "highly vulnerable" to challenge under article 2 of the Human Rights Act.
However, the judge also said that "...prohibiting collaboration would have been likely to hinder rather than promote an effective investigation..."