www.news-alliance.com

Family of leading barrister shot dead by Metropolitan Police marksmen instruct top solicitor to fight IPCC 'investigation'

• Mark Saunders fired on neighbours, police and adjoining houses, so have his family got a case?

At News Alliance we have built a strong reputation for not defending the errant actions of British police officers and quite righly so because there is little to defend but the case of barrister Mark Saunders is an exception which proves the rule.

His devastated family has hired a leading civil rights lawyer to challenge the police version of events. The widow and parents of Mark Saunders believe officers could have resolved the stand-off in an exclusive London square last month without resorting to lethal force.

But given the fact that Saunders shot at police, neighbours and adjoining houses it is difficult to understand why his family think they have a case?

They rightly fear an official investigation, which will take up to six months to reach a conclusion, could become a whitewash. In fact, every 'inquiry' and 'investigation' conducted under the corrupt New Labour has been a whitewash from the Hutton to the Princess Diana quasi-inquest.

But Saunders' family may have points to score on the number of times he was shot by anti-terrorist CO19 officers. Saunders fired his shotgun out of the window of the £2.2 million home in Markham Square, Chelsea, which he shared with his wife Elizabeth Clarke, in what immediately became known as 'suicide by cop'. Police say they had no choice but to return fire after he shot at officers, neighbours and other houses in the square.

But 40-year-old Ms Clarke, who is also a barrister rejects this and has hired high-profile London solicitor Jane Deighton to act for the family during the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) 'inquiry' into his death. As a barrister Ms Clarke should know only too well that the IPCC is a de facto police protection team set up to give the impression of trying 'investigate' wayward police officers but in reality almost nothing ever happens to the police they 'investigate'.

Mr saunders relatives believe Ms Clarke should have been allowed into the couple's home to reason with her husband, are also concerned at the length of time the inquiry is expected to take. But have they considered for one moment that he may have shot his wife? Clearly he was unbalanced, intoxicated and intent on violent confrontation which he got.

The most disturbing aspect of this case is the fact that police shot him seven times which is sheer overkill and he could have been killed with at least two direct hits to the head and/or torso. But the family of the dead barrister want answers and have a right to pursue a case against the police but it is highly unlikely they will get anything remotely resembling the truth from a police service riddled with born liars.

Nonetheless, acting on the information currently in the public domain it is diffucult understand why the family believe Saunders should not have been shot dead? Perhaps they believe barristers should only be shot at with rubber bullets given the fact that lawyers see themselves as a protected species.

Ms Deighton was chosen by the Saunders family because of her 'formidable' reputation for winning battles against the police. But Deighton must know only too well that she will be confronted with a wall of silence, closed ranks and endemic lies. It is bad enough trying to obtain 'justice' when innocent members of the public have been killed by the police let alone when the 'victim' fired multiple shots at the police.

But irrespective of the underlying issues standing against the Saunders family, this is one case we intend to follow closely....

Leave a comment