An alcoholic barrister who pointed his shotgun at police was lawfully killed when they opened fire in response, an inquest jury has ruled.
Mark Saunders, 32, died when Scotland Yard marksmen fired a volley of shots during a drunken stand-off at his home in Markham Square, Chelsea, on May 6 2008.
A jury at Westminster Coroner's Court ruled their lethal actions were lawful, proportionate and reasonable at the conclusion of a two-and-a-half-week inquest. 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".
The jury said it was not sure Mr Saunders "deliberately and consciously" committed 'suicide by cop' by using his shotgun to provoke police to shoot him.
The inquest heard the gunman said he expected to die several times during the evening but that he was extremely drunk and may have been in a fantasy world.
The jury said more detailed consideration should have been given by police commanders at an early stage in the siege to using his wife Elizabeth or friend Michael Bradley to defuse the confrontation. But it added that this did not contribute to the deadly outcome.
The jury said there was a "lack of clarity" over who was responsible for frontline firearms officers. But it added that this did not contribute to the deadly outcome either.
In a legal ruling that can now be revealed, Coroner Dr Paul Knapman said there was not enough evidence to prove unlawful killing and did not give the jury this option. He said: "I am satisfied there is insufficient evidence to justify leaving the jury with the option of finding that unlawful killing is made out to the criminal standard."
The Crown Prosecution Service will now review the circumstances of Mr Saunders's death to see if new and significant evidence emerged during the inquest.
Mrs Saunders sat with her head bowed and dabbed her eyes as the nine to two majority narrative verdict was returned. Dr 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."
An alcoholic barrister who pointed his shotgun at police was lawfully killed when they opened fire in response, an inquest jury has ruled.
Mark Saunders, 32, died when Scotland Yard marksmen fired a volley of shots during a drunken stand-off at his home in Markham Square, Chelsea, on May 6 2008.
A jury at Westminster Coroner's Court ruled their lethal actions were lawful, proportionate and reasonable at the conclusion of a two-and-a-half-week inquest. 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".
The jury said it was not sure Mr Saunders "deliberately and consciously" committed 'suicide by cop' by using his shotgun to provoke police to shoot him.
The inquest heard the gunman said he expected to die several times during the evening but that he was extremely drunk and may have been in a fantasy world.
The jury said more detailed consideration should have been given by police commanders at an early stage in the siege to using his wife Elizabeth or friend Michael Bradley to defuse the confrontation. But it added that this did not contribute to the deadly outcome.
The jury said there was a "lack of clarity" over who was responsible for frontline firearms officers. But it added that this did not contribute to the deadly outcome either.
In a legal ruling that can now be revealed, Coroner Dr Paul Knapman said there was not enough evidence to prove unlawful killing and did not give the jury this option. He said: "I am satisfied there is insufficient evidence to justify leaving the jury with the option of finding that unlawful killing is made out to the criminal standard."
The Crown Prosecution Service will now review the circumstances of Mr Saunders's death to see if new and significant evidence emerged during the inquest.
Mrs Saunders sat with her head bowed and dabbed her eyes as the nine to two majority narrative verdict was returned. Dr 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."