Salisbury Novichok inquiry latest: Putin told to ‘look Dawn Sturgess family in the eye’ over poisoning death

Barrister Michael Mansfield KC, acting on behalf of Dawn Sturgess’s family, told the inquiry that “credible reporting indicates that [Sergei] Skripal was supplying evidence to UK intelligence services in the period shortly before he was attacked.

Mr Mansfield said: “Mr Skripal himself stated in the aftermath of the attack that the Russian authorities believed he was still actively working for the West and that ‘this [was the] number one reason ... [for the attack]’.”

Dawn Sturgess’s death was a tragedy that “stunned” her family, to whom being the “collateral damage of global spy wars” felt “like James Bond meets The Archers”, her family’s barrister has told the inquiry.

Adam Straw KC said: “Dawn’s death is a tragedy for her family, her partner and her friends. Living a quiet life in rural Salisbury they were stunned to be the collateral damage of global spy wars. It felt like James Bond meets The Archers. But the consequences could have been even more disastrous.

“For example, children could have found the bottle and innocently poisoned each other. What would have happened if the Nina Ricci bottle had been taken into and used in a crowded local venue? It was capable of causing a massacre.”

Adam Straw KC, a barrister for Dawn Sturgess’s family has alleged to the inquiry that, “depositing the Novichok in the centre of Salisbury, when that same Novichok later caused Dawn’s death, was unlawful killing – either unlawful act or gross negligence manslaughter.

Barrister Adam Straw KC has cited the UK’s then national security advisor Sir Mark Sedwill as claiming that the only way the quantity and purity of the Novichok in the perfume bottle “could have been made and deployed is by a state actor”.

He told the inquiry that Sir Mark had accused Russia of covertly producing and stockpiling Novichoks, and of training personnel from special units to deliver Novichok for assassination, including by applying it to door handles.

There is no evidence that the Russian men going by the names of Alexander Petrov, Ruslan Boshirov and Sergey Fedotov knew Sergei Skripal personally, or that they had some personal animus against him, barrister Adam Straw KC told the inquiry.

“They must have been acting for someone else. The Russian state and Mr Putin evidently did have a motive to attack Mr Skripal,” Mr Straw said.

He added: “Mr Putin described Mr Skripal as ‘A traitor to his motherland’. That was an ominous description, given that the Russian state under Mr Putin has a track record of assassination, or of botched assassination, of those it considers traitors.”

In the poisoning of the Skripals, lawyers for Dawn Sturgess’s family have proposed to the inquiry that the facts can be assumed as follows:

• The scientific trace evidence proves that the same specific Novichok that poisoned the Skripals and was left on their front door handle, was also in Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov’s hotel room.
• The Novichok was deposited on that front door handle on Sunday morning.
• Petrov and Boshirov went past the Skripal address on Sunday morning, and they did not return to their hotel room thereafter.

Barrister Adam Straw KC added: “If so, there is no credible explanation of those facts, other than that Petrov and Boshirov put the Novichok on the Skripal front door handle.”

Dawn Sturgess found found lying in the bath fully clothed, with “pinpoint pupils”, convulsing and drooling at the mouth shortly after spraying herself with the perfume bottle, her family’s barrister Adam Straw KC said.

Dawn’s partner Charlie Rowley called an ambulance and she was taken to hospital, the inquiy was told.

Because of the Novichok found to be in her system, Sturgess’s family were not allowed to bury her as they wished.

After Mr Rowley called the ambulance for Sturgess, he then suffered “very similar” symptoms to hers, and was “drooling profusely, fitting” and also had pinpoint pupils. He has suffered long-term physical and mental injuries as a result of the poisoning, including problems wih his vision, legs, balance and memory, the inquiry heard.

Today’s hearing is now back under way.

The inquiry has been told that the chair has permitted some witnesses to give evidence anonymously, and “exceptionally” for some to give evidence without their faces to be sen or their voices heard by the public.

“These are limited measures. They will not impact greatly, either on the transparency or the essentially public nature of these proceedings,” said lead counsel Andrew O’Connor KC, adding that the chair is satisfied that these measures are both “necessary and proportionate”.

Sergei Skripal has denied that he feared his life was in danger prior to the Novichok attack in 2018, but said he believed there were “some precautions” in place to protect him.

In his written statement, he said: “My life was normal and I had no information or warning to support such a comment. I was aware of nothing special or different around that time.”

“I do not know specifically which organisations were responsible for my security in Great Britain. I believe the authorities had put some precautions in place but I am not aware of all the details.”

He added: “I do not remember concretely what was covered in discussions about my personal security arrangements, but I believe I was offered protection, including changing my name. It was never suggested that this was a necessary option and I decide against it.”

He added that CCTV was recommended to him, but he declined this “because I did not want to make my house conspicuous or live under surveillance”, and “did not keep my address secret and when I visited London and stayed overnight I registered at a hotel under my own name”.

But he continued: “I may not be aware of all the security measures that were in place and I am not a security expert. When I received advice about my security I generally followed it ... I do not believe it was suggested to me that I posed a risk to the UK community, either generally or in relation to poison or other toxic substances.”

The inquiry will examine the circumstances around Dawn Sturgess’s boyfriend Charlie Rowley’s discovery of the perfume bottle, lead counsel Andrew O’Connor KC said, but barristers are “not optimistic that we will arrive at a single convincing explanation”.

He told the inquiry: “The idea that [Mr Rowley] may have found the perfume bottle in a bin is plausible in itself. As we shall hear, Mr Rowley accepts that he was in the practice of searching for valuable items in certain bins, and the charity shop bin in the Brown Street car park was one of those that he visited.

“But there is evidence that these bins were emptied regularly – a bottle left in the bin in early Mrach would certainly not have still been there in June, when Mr Rowley says he found the bottle.

“Perhaps Mr Rowley is wrong and he removed the bottle from the bin within a day or so of the Skripal poisoning – perhaps even the same day – but that would mean that he had it in his possession for months longer than he remembered, including a time when he moved house.”

He added that “there are other factual scenarios to consider”, which will be heard over the course of the inquiry’s hearings.