Lawyer's family ends legal action

Mark Saunders was shot following a five-hour stand-off

The family of a lawyer shot dead by police have said they will not appeal against a ruling on the manner in which police are investigating his death.

In October the High Court dismissed a claim by Mark Saunders' family that the independent police probe is unlawful.

But the judge raised questions about the police practice of allowing the officers involved to confer.

Following the ruling the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) changed the practice to stop any conferring.

'No conferring'

The family of Mark Saunders, 32, said they therefore will not approach the Court of Appeal.

Jane Deighton, solicitor for Mr Saunder's sister Charlotte who initiated the legal action said: "They now have everything they asked for and there is no need for an appeal.

"The investigation will continue without officers conferring in the future."

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), which has been investigating the shooting, has backed the decision of the family - Mr Saunder's two sisters and parents.

During a five-hour siege in Chelsea, south-west London, in May 2008 Mr Saunders, a divorce lawyer, fired at police officers, neighbours and buildings with a legally-owned shotgun from his £2.2m home in Markham Square.

The area was evacuated as Mr Saunders shot at neighbours

Ms Saunders had said she initiated legal action against the IPCC probe as officers were allowed to confer, but police denied the claim saying "conferring is not colluding".

Although the legal action has been dropped the Police Federation applied to continue over some of the judge's findings, which it said was purely academic.

The federation will have to bear the costs of Wednesday's hearing.

Revised guidelines issued by Acpo after the ruling said: "Each officer's initial account should only consist of their individual recollection of events and should, among other things, address the question of what they believed to be the facts and why, if relevant, they considered that the use of force and discharge of firearms was absolutely necessary."

It added : "As a matter of general practice officers should not confer with others before making their accounts - whether initial or subsequent accounts."