UK believes Putin personally authorised Salisbury novichok attack, inquiry told

The UK government believes that the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, authorised the Salisbury novichok poisonings, which could have killed thousands of people, an inquiry has been told.

A senior Foreign Office (FCDO) official has given a statement to the inquiry spelling out that the British government has concluded the nerve agent attack was so sensitive that Putin himself must have given it the go-ahead.

The inquiry also heard that the former Russian spy Sergei Skripal , who was the target of the attack, blamed Putin. In a new statement provided to the inquiry, he said: “I believe Putin makes all important decisions himself. I therefore think he must have at least given permission for the attack.”

Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, were poisoned by novichok on 4 March 2018 in Salisbury, where he had been settled after a spy exchange.

On 30 June 2018, Dawn Sturgess, 44, and her boyfriend, Charlie Rowley, fell ill at his home in Amesbury , 11 miles north of Salisbury, having been poisoned with novichok that Rowley had apparently found in a perfume bottle left in a bin. The Skripals and Rowley survived, but Sturgess died on 8 July.

The inquiry, which began at the Guildhall in Salisbury on Monday, has been set up to examine Sturgess’s death but it will also look in detail at the attack on the Skripals.

Andrew O’Connor KC, counsel to the inquiry, described the circumstances of Sturgess’s death as “extraordinary, unique”.

The barrister said: “When Dawn Sturgess was poisoned by novichok four months after the Skripal poisoning, the real possibility emerged that she had been caught – an innocent victim – in the crossfire of an illegal and outrageous international assassination attempt.”

O’Connor continued: “The evidence will suggest that this bottle, which we shall hear contained enough poison to kill thousands of people, must earlier have been left somewhere in a public place.”

He told the chair of the inquiry, Lord Hughes of Ombersley: “You may conclude that those who discarded the bottle in this way acted with a grotesque disregard for human life.”

Jonathan Allen, a senior official at the FCDO, had provided a statement summarising the UK government’s assessments on who was behind the poisonings.

His statement says: “In light of the required seniority under Russian law to approve assassinations….outside Russia, and that this incident concerned a politically sensitive target (Mr Skripal was a UK citizen, and was targeted on UK soil), it is HMG’s view that President Putin authorised the operation.”

The inquiry was told Skripal had expressed his own views on the matter. When interviewed in May 2018 by the police, he said it was his “private opinion” that Putin was responsible, and the “number one reason” for the assassination attempt was that Russia believed he was still working for the west.

In a further statement, provided to the inquiry in the last week or so, Skripal said: “I do not know for certain how Putin personally viewed me. As far as I know I never spoke to him, although I was in the same room as him two times many years ago.

“It is not honourable to kill people who have been exchanged and the attack on Yulia and me was an absolute shock. I believe Putin makes all important decisions himself. I therefore think he must have at least given permission for the attack.

“When I was still working in GRU special services in Russia I had access to secret information. I was aware of allegations that Putin had been involved in illegal activity to do with the disposal of rare metals.” He added: “I have read that Putin is personally very interested in poison.”

Skripal said he had felt safe in the UK and had not wanted special security measures.

The inquiry was told that the Skripals were poisoned after novichok was smeared on the door handle of the former spy’s home. O’Connor made it clear that how Rowley came upon the bottle remained a mystery. He said: “We are not optimistic that we will arrive at a single convincing explanation.”

CCTV footage of the suspected would-be assassins’ trip to Salisbury was played to the inquiry and O’Connor highlighted a “missing” 31 minutes when they were not seen, which may have been when they discarded the perfume bottle.

Adam Straw KC, acting on behalf of the Sturgess family , said their loved one was “the collateral damage of global spy wars”, adding: “It felt like James Bond meets The Archers.”

Straw called on Putin to attend the inquiry, saying: “He should not cower behind the walls of the Kremlin. He should look Dawn’s family in the eyes and answer the evidence against him.”

Straw said tests had proved the novichok found on Skripal’s door handle was from the same batch as the nerve agent that killed Sturgess.

Michael Mansfield KC, also representing the family, claimed the UK authorities put the lives of British citizens in danger by not protecting Skripal. He said: “The poisoning of Mr Skripal was no bolt from the blue. He was a clear and obvious target of an attack from Mr Putin and his henchmen.”

The barrister suggested that not enough was done to find the bottle that had contained the novichok used in the attack on Skripal. He said Wiltshire police had apologised for wrongly telling medical staff who treated Dawn Sturgess that she was an illegal drugs user.

He described the attack as “ghoulishly similar” to the poisoning of the former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko, who was poisoned with a cup of tea in a London hotel.

Cathryn McGahey KC, for the UK government, said: “It’s the government’s view that this operation was authorised by President Putin.”

The inquiry continues.