Should the police marksmen be named?

The controversy over whether police officers who fire fatal shots on London's streets should be identified took a dramatic new twist today.

The family of Derek Bennett, shot dead holding a novelty cigarette lighter, reacted with fury when judges ruled the police marksmen involved should remain anonymous.

The decision comes just days after the Met suspended two named officers who, five years ago, shot and killed Harry Stanley as he carried a table leg.

Today the family of Mr Bennett, shot dead in Brixton by officers identified only as A and B, described the anonymity ruling as "disgraceful" and "an obvious ploy by the establishment to protect their own".

A statement from relatives outside court added: "We, the family of Derek and his now four fatherless children, feel we have the right of an uncensored explanation as to why he was taken from us so viciously."

They accused officers in Scotland Yard's SO19 squad, who are staging a unofficial firearms strike over Harry Stanley suspensions, of "throwing their dummies out of the pram and holding the public to ransom".

During the Bennett hearing in the Appeal Court, police revealed fears that unnamed "criminal elements" were planning to take revenge on the two police officers if their identities were revealed. Mr Bennett, 29, was hit by four shots in the back and shoulder on a Brixton estate in July

2001. Police believed he was threatening a hostage with a real gun.

When he refused to respond to calls to surrender, Officer A opened fire with six shots from his Gloch 17 pistol. Officer B did not shoot.

An inquest into the shooting is due to start on Monday when the two officers will give evidence before a jury on a video link.

Inner south London coroner Selena Lynch had originally refused to grant the officers anonymity. But in June this year a High Court judge overturned that decision and his ruling was confirmed today by the appeal court.

Lord Justice Gage, sitting with Lord Justices Mummery and Maurice Kay said the decision was based on a balance between the demands for open justice and a right to life under the European human rights legislation.

During the hearing, police had raised fears about a cache of guns and drugs found locally and the threat from criminals more than capable of killing officers.

However, members of the Bennett family in court for the judgment attacked a succession of decisions they say were made against them.

"Three-and-a-half years on," their statement said, "we are being told by the courts we cannot see the faces of the police officers responsible for the death - is this justice?"

In the Stanley case, Inspector Neil Sharman and PC Kevin Fagan have been suspended after an unlawful killing verdict at an inquest.

Stanley, who had a previous conviction for armed robbery was shot after a member of the public told police they had seen a man with an Irish accent carrying a gun. In fact, Scottish-born Stanley, a father-ofthree was carrying a coffee table leg.

Unlike today's ruling granting anonymity, the two officers who killed Harry Stanley were named publicly at the original inquest.