The fatal shooting of a wanted man during a "covert strike" by armed officers has been blamed on a failure of planning by senior commanders.

Armed police descended on an orchard near Goudhurst hoping to use a "control and containment" strategy to bring wanted murder suspect William Smith back into custody after he broke his bail by removing his electronic tag.

A senior Kent Police officer - identified only as Officer V - today gave evidence at the inquest into the 36-year-old father-of-four's death at the hands of armed officers in May 2016.

Officer V, who was the senior firearms commander on the night Smith was killed, was questioned by counsel for the inquest, Christopher Sutton-Mattocks QC, about the tactics put in place to capture the fugitive alive and minimise risk to life for officers and the wider public.

Describing how specialist firearms officers hoped to encircle their target, she said: "The officers would approach unseen initially to get themselves in a position where they had sufficient cover and protection, and maybe a physical barrier between them and the subject.

"Then, once the containment was in place, communicate with Mr Smith, and then our preferred outcome was that he would be compliant and we could safely arrest him."

Leslie Thomas QC, counsel for Smith's family, this afternoon questioned Officer V on her decision to proceed with the operation involving six specialist firearms officers and six armed response officers which began shortly after sunset on May 1.

'The longer you leave it there's a risk of escape...'

Mr Thomas asked the witness if, with regard to the obligation to prioritise the right to life under Article 2 of the Human Rights Act, a consideration was made as to whether to postpone the attempt to capture Smith - known to be in possession of firearms - until the next morning when light came up.

"In terms of waiting until the morning, officers had been on for a long shift and there was also a consideration about resource levels," Officer V said, "but the longer you leave it there's a risk of escape."

Mr Thomas said: "Sending in armed officers, you had options and one of those options was, for officer safety and for Mr Smith's safety, going in the following day. That's an important decision."

"Did you consider going in in the early hours when the light was up," the QC asked the senior firearms commander.

"Not to a great degree," Officer V replied.

Mr Thomas went on to question the witness about the plan for the operation, which he suggested appeared "half baked".

Questioning the earlier evidence that police hoped to encircle Smith unseen but using vehicles as they surrounded him, he said: "It's not a particularly covert approach, is it, if they are approaching in vehicles?"

"No," Officer V replied.

The hearing also heard that the approach to the rural land on which Smith had been located required access via a five-bar gate, which could have been locked.

Mr Thomas said: "If you had seen the aerial photographs you would have seen there was a large gate that was chained. Were you aware of that?"

"I did not know it was chained," she responded.

"Even if you had not have seen the chain, if you are planning obviously that's something you have to make a contingency for. How on earth were these officers going to make a covert approach if the gate was chained?"

Smith was on the run following the killing of Roy Blackman at his home in Biddenden during a robbery which saw a safe containing anywhere up to £250,000 in cash stolen.

The inquest, which is taking place at County Hall in Maidstone with a jury, previously heard from Mr Sutton-Mattocks that Smith was "a career criminal with a drug habit" who officers believed would try "to shoot himself if approached by police".

Intelligence gathered by the police hunting the builder - also known as Curly Bill - suggested he might also attempt to provoke "suicide by cop" rather than be taken alive.

Specialist negotiators had been briefed in case they might be required to bring the operation to a safe conclusion. However Mr Thomas questioned why the negotiators were stationed some distance away when the operation took place.

Officer V, who oversaw the operation from a remote office base, said: "When officers move forward and they communicate with the subject then you can back off, we can allow that time for him to come forward safely and be compliant with the instructions given by the officers."

According to accounts of officers involved, Smith was seen out in the open, talking on a mobile phone, but he spotted the approaching police and retreated to a shed on the land owned by his father-in-law.

Commanding officers then approved a "limited entry" of the building, which saw the four armed officers open a door to gain sight of what was inside - at which point they say they saw what they believed to be the barrel of a shotgun pointing from behind an upturned chair or sofa.

One of the armed officers - identified only as Officer T - then launched a stun grenade into the building and they retreated. Four shots were then fired, one hitting Smith above the left eye and two hitting him in the chest.

'Why was it necessary for firearms officers to approach...'

Despite attempts to resuscitate the suspect, he was pronounced dead at the scene by paramedics at 9.10pm. A post mortem toxicology report found he had blood alcohol levels almost three times the legal drink driving limit.

Mr Thomas went on to ask Officer V why, when officers were seen by Smith, they did not seek to contain and observe him rather than proceeding with the limited entry.

"Once it was thought that Mr Smith was in one of the structures," he asked, "why was it necessary for firearms officers to approach the structure?"

Officer V replied: "I don't think I can answer that unfortunately because I was not there."

Mr Thomas continued: "Knowing that there was a chance Mr Smith could be armed, knowing that Mr Smith was potentially emotionally disturbed and knowing there's the potential for a provoked shooting, going up to the door, opening the door, is likely to achieve the very thing that you wanted to avoid: Mr Smith brandishing a weapon at the officers and getting shot.

"That was entirely foreseeable, was it not?"

"No, I disagree," Officer V replied.

Mr Thomas concluded his questioning by asking if the decision to approve the limited entry amounted to a failure of the operational leadership.

"The manner in which they entered the structure, and if Mr Smith did what they thought he might do, provoke a shooting, he would be shot and that's what happened.

"And that was a failure on the part of your planning, do you accept that?"

"No, I do not," Officer V replied.

The inquest continues.

For more information on how we can report on inquests, click here

Read more: All the latest news from the Weald

Read more: All the latest news from Maidstone