Gunman 'no threat' claim denied

Mark Saunders was shot by police marksmen after a five-hour siege

Investigators have denied that a barrister turned gunman posed no lethal threat before he was shot dead by police, the High Court has heard.

Mark Saunders, 32, was shot after a five-hour siege when he fired at police from his home in Chelsea, west London.

Outside court, his sister Charlotte said CCTV video showed Mr Saunders posed "no risk to the public".

But the Independent Police Complaints Commission said it was "not an accurate picture of what is seen in the video".

Mr Saunders' family wants the High Court to rule that the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) investigation into his death was unlawful, as police officers involved were allowed to confer before making their statements.

'Area evacuated'

His family also claim the IPCC failed to give them sufficient information.

CCTV footage of the May incident taken from a police helicopter was the main source of information for the family, their lawyer Tim Owen said.

On Wednesday, Ms Saunders told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the CCTV footage made her question "whether it was necessary to kill my brother".

She added: "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."

It is not correct to say that at the moment Mr Saunders was shot that the gun was being held limply in his left hand IPCC lawyer Dinah Rose

But on Thursday IPCC lawyer Dinah Rose told the court there were "concerns" over the conduct of Mr Saunders' family.

"What has been made public by the Saunders family is not an accurate picture of what is seen in the video," Ms Rose said.

"It is not correct to say that at the moment Mr Saunders was shot that the gun was being held limply in his left hand."

Ms Rose said the CCTV footage was shown to Ms Saunders "in confidence, as part of the attempt to maintain transparency by the IPCC".

"It is obviously critical evidence and was not seen by the police officers who have made statements," she added.

Ms Rose said it was "premature" for the family to bring the legal challenge because the investigation would not be completed until March next year.

She said the family had not helped the investigation "in the way they have chosen to conduct themselves".

"I say this with the greatest respect to the family who have gone through this tragic time but the IPCC is not helped by aggressive correspondence."

The hearing continues.