Police protection for Duggan jury: Special escort as family hurled threats and abuse after inquest Jurors protected after menacing behaviour from gangster's supporters Ex-Met commander said the scenes at the court were 'unacceptable' Duggan's fiancee Semone Wilson refused to apologise for the abuse She claimed the jeering that followed the verdict was a result of anger Jurors at the Mark Duggan inquest were given special protection by police following the intimidation and vile abuse they faced after they delivered their verdicts at the Royal Courts of Justice. Reports that they were provided with an escort after the case came amid a growing backlash against the menacing behaviour of some of Duggan's supporters. One former Met commander said the scenes of near anarchy were unprecedented and that it was "totally unacceptable" for jurors to be intimidated for simply doing their public duty. Anarchy: People point and shout at Police Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley r (ight) as he addresses the media and members of the public outside the Royal Courts of Justice And a leading crime prevention expert said the astonishing outburst threatened to damage the "dignity" of Britain's most prestigious court. The coroner ordered the ten jurors be granted anonymity. Unusually, their names were never read out in open court - and they were referred to by number rather than name. It is understood they were also provided with a police escort as they left the building. Scotland Yard last night declined to comment on any measures to protect the jury. Gangster Duggan's fiancee Semone Wilson refused to apologise for the abuse. She also made the extraordinary claim that the jurors had been part of a conspiracy with "unknown forces" to exonerate the police of any blame for his death. Miss Wilson, 32, claimed the jeering and fury that followed the jury's verdict of lawful killing was justified because "we were all angry." She said her family were devastated by the jury's conclusion and accused jurors of having being "coached." "No one in their right mind could come to that conclusion," she said. Justice has completely failed, I have no faith in it whatsoever. Appeal: Carol Duggan (left) pleaded for calm in the wake of decision concerning her newphew (right) but said the family would continue to fight the decision Loud: Reporters struggled to hear the assistant commissioner's statement over the chants Allegation: Duggan's fiance Semone Wilson (pictured in 2011) claimed the jurors had been part of a conspiracy There's a lot that goes on behind the scenes and we might never know exactly what. The jury have got a part to play in it and I'm not going to apologise to them. Duggan, 29, died in a police ambush in Tottenham, north London in August 2011, sparking riots across London and other parts of England. Yesterday Duggan's aunt Carole appealed for calm and said she wanted "no more violence." She added: "We will have to fight this, go through the struggle, peacefully through the right channels, to get justice for as long as it takes." After returning a lawful killing verdict at the High Court on Wednesday, jurors were forced to retreat from court as supporters screamed abuse at them, lawyers, court officials and police. The violence continued outside as Met Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley was spat at as he tried to make a conciliatory statement. But Scotland Yard said no inquiry was taking place into potential public order offences or other crimes because "no complaint has been made." Defiant: Carol Duggan, aunt of Mark Duggan, raised her fist in the air after the verdict was read out Cohesion: Pam Duggan, mother of Mark Duggan (centre) with her son Marlon Duggan (left) and aunt Carol Duggan (right) stand together after the conclusion of the case Anger: Demonstrators chanted their support for the Duggan family Peter Cuthbertson, of the Centre for Crime Prevention, said he feared the violent scenes could set a disturbing precedent. Courts should have an atmosphere of dignity and professionalism at all times, he said. It sets a very worrying precedent if people can get away with barracking members of a jury and making threatening comments. People who serve on a jury must have an absolute assurance that they will be protected from those who are angry about the verdict they reach. The law should be extremely robust against any threats of violence before, during and after a trial. Former Met Commander Lord Paddick added: "It is totally unacceptable for any jury to be intimidated as a result of doing their public duty. Whatever the understandable frustration of the family, the jury did their job. They should not be treated like that. The scenes on Wednesday were unprecedented. I don't remember when anything like this has happened at another inquest. Clearly lessons need to be learned for the future. Hundreds of riot-trained police officers remained on high alert across the capital last night over fears that tensions could boil over once again. Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe met with community leaders as he said the force must work harder to build trust with the black population. In a worrying development, the family have so far declined to meet police and announced a vigil in his memory outside Tottenham Police Station on Saturday afternoon. An angry march on the same police station in August 2011 sparked four days of rioting. A spokesman for the inquest said: "There was anger in Court 73 as the verdict was given and continued as the jury were taken out of the court room through the judge's entrance." Case: The scene where Mark Duggan was killed by police Crime correspondent CHRIS GREENWOOD examines the key questions faced by the jury...and the conclusions they reached. Did Duggan have a gun? The jury ruled unanimously that Duggan was carrying a gun in the back of the minicab. He picked up the converted pistol - contained in a shoebox - from drug dealer Kevin Hutchinson-Foster 12 minutes before the fatal shots were fired. Was it in his hand when he was shot? The jury found, by a majority of eight to two, that he was not holding the BBM Bruni Model 92 pistol. Where was it? The weapon, wrapped in a black sock, was found some 20ft away on a grassy slope on the other side of some railings. How did it get there? The Duggan family insist it was planted there by police, but the jury dismissed this claim. They believe the dead man probably threw it there as he jumped out of the minicab, in the one or two seconds before police confronted him. Why was Duggan lawfully killed? Because the officer who shot him, known only as V53, honestly believed that he posed an imminent threat to his life, or the lives of his colleagues, when he pulled the trigger. Is the decision really "perverse" as the Duggan family claims? It does not matter that Duggan was not holding a gun, only that the officer's "honestly held belief" was that he did have one. The jury clearly believed the officer's testimony. When can police use lethal force? Officers can use lethal force to protect others against the threat of death or serious injury. But according to recent guidelines it "should only be used when absolutely necessary in self-defence, or in the defence of others against the threat of death or serious injury." It is extremely rare for police to shoot suspects. Mark Duggan is the only person shot dead by police in London in the past four years. Criminals, however, have shot 50 people dead in the capital since the start of 2010.