Questions the barrister inquest jury answered

The jury ruled Mark Saunders was lawfully killed but raised concerns over communications at Scotland Yard as it answered the seven questions issued at the conclusion of the barrister's inquest.

1. Do you consider that it is established as likely that the fatal wound to the head of Mark Saunders was caused by a shot which was lawfully fired, ie, in necessary and reasonable self-defence and/or defence of someone else?

Jury: Yes.

2. Do you consider that it is established as likely that the fatal wound to the heart of Mark Saunders was caused by a shot which was lawfully fired, ie, in necessary and reasonable self-defence and/or defence of someone else?

Jury: Yes.

3. Do you consider that it is established as likely that the fatal wound to the liver of Mark Saunders was caused by a shot which was lawfully fired, ie, in necessary and reasonable self-defence and/or defence of someone else?

Jury: Yes.

4. Do you consider that it is established on the evidence so that you are sure that Mark Saunders deliberately and consciously took steps with a shotgun as shown on the film at 9.32pm with the intention of causing police officers to shoot and kill him because it was his wish that he should be killed by them?

Jury: Not sure.

5. Do you consider that it is established as likely that more detailed consideration should have been given at an early stage to enabling contact to take place between Mr Bradley and or Mrs Saunders and the deceased?

Jury: Yes.

If yes, do you consider that it is established as likely that this circumstance made some contribution to the cause of his death?

Jury: No.

6. Do you consider that it is established as likely that there was a lack of clarity between the roles of the firearms tactical adviser and the firearms bronze commander?

Jury: Yes.

If yes, do you consider that it is established as likely that this circumstance made some contribution to the cause of his death?

Jury: No.

7. Do you consider that it is established as likely that insufficient weight was given after 9.09pm to the fact that Mr Saunders was a member of what used to be called a special population group (now "vulnerable person") with regard to the nature, proximity and numbers in the police containment?

Jury: Yes.

If yes, do you consider that it is established as likely that this circumstance made some contribution to the cause of his death?

Jury: No.