Salisbury Novichok inquiry latest: Perfume that poisoned Dawn Sturgess had enough nerve agent to kill thousands
UK has accused Russian intelligence services of carrying out attack in Salisbury in 2018
For free real time breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox sign up to our breaking news emails
Sign up to our free breaking news emails
The public inquiry into the death of Dawn Sturgess, who died in the Novichok poisonings, has heard that the perfume bottle believed to have contained the nerve agent held enough to kill thousands of people.
Ms Sturgess, 44, was killed after coming into contact with the Russian-engineered nerve agent in Amesbury in July 2018.
Her contact with Novichok followed the attempted murder of former spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter, who were poisoned in nearby Salisbury in March that year. Police officer Nick Bailey also fell ill after becoming exposed to the chemical.
They were poisoned when members of a Russian military intelligence squad are believed to have smeared the nerve agent on Mr Skripal’s door handle. All three survived, as did Ms Sturgess’s boyfriend Charlie Rowley, who had unwittingly given her the bottle containing the killer chemical weapon.
In a new witness statement issued by Mr Skripal, the inquiry heard on Monday that the former Russian militay intelligence operative believes Vladimir Putin personally ordered the attack on his life.
The inquiry will sit all week in Salisbury.
Government to give private evidence over whether Skripal spied for Britain, inquiry hears
The inquiry will hear in private evidence relating to the question of whether Sergei Skripal was a British agent prior to his arrest in Russia and, if so, continued to do so following his release and move to Britain, its lead counsel said.
Andrew O’Connor KC told the inquiry that “these two factual questions are of obvious importance” to the investigation, “not least because they may go towards indicating the presence, or, equally, an absence, of a possible motive on the part of the Russian state for attempting to kill” Skripal.
The inquiry’s chair ruled on 3 November 2023 that the government would not be required to provide this evidence in open sessions, as he accepted that to depart from the “neither confirm nor deny” principle “would cause unjustifiable damage to national security”, Mr O’Connor said.
He added: “The reason for that general principle is not only to protect individuals whose activity is questioned, but also and more importantly to ensure that anyone who may give information to the British authorities, now or in the future, can be confident that whatever their relationship with them may be, the authorities will never be required to discuss it publicly.”
Inquiry counsel rejects Russian criticism of chair
The inquiry’s lead counsel has rejected criticism by Russia of the inquiry chair Lord Hughes of Ombersley’s decision that neither of the Skripals should give live spoken evidence to the inquiry.
While the Russian embassy had claimed that the ruling three weeks ago “demonstrates the British authorities’ obstinacy in concealing our citizens”, Andrew O’Connor KC said: “First, you are not ‘the British authorities’ – rather, you are the chair of a public inquiry that is entirely independent of the British government.
“Second, the core reason for your decision not to call the Skripals to give oral evidence ... was in fact the risk of physical attack (by whomever it might be) on one or both of them – a risk which, you concluded, clearly outweighed the advantage to the Inquiry of them attending to give oral evidence.”
Sergei Skripal worked for GRU before being convicted on spying charges
Poisoning victim Sergei Skripal was born in Russia and that he served first as a paratrooper in the Russian Army, and latterly as a member of the GRU Russian military intelligence agency, the inquiry was told.
In 2004, he was convicted in Russia on espionage charges, and was reportedly alleged to have spied for Britain, lead counsel Andrew O’Connor KC said.
He was subsequently sentenced to 13 years in prison, but in 2010 was given a presidential pardon and was brought to the UK in a prisoner exchange.
Mr Skripal had lived in Salisbury since 2010, mostly on Christie Miller Road. After his arrival in the UK, his wife, son and daughter left Russia to live with him, but his wife and son had subsequently died and his daughter had returned to Russia, Mr O’Connor said.
But his daughter Yulia visited her father regularly and arrived to visit him the day before the poisoning.
Inquiry hears results of post-mortem
The inquiry has heard that the professor who conducted the post-mortem examination on Dawn Sturgess, who will be giving evidence to the inquiry, recorded her cause of death as post cardiac arrest hypoxic brain injury and intra cerebral haemorrhage, and Novichok toxicity.
According to lead counsel Andrew O’Connor KC, the poison caused Sturgess’s nervous system to become overstimulated, which led to heart failure. That in turn caused DS’s brain to be starved of oxygen.
When paramedics arrived at the scene they performed CPR and managed to restart her heart, after which she was taken to hospital and treated for several days, Mr O’Connor said.
But the damage that had been done to her brain from the lack of oxygen during that initial period gradually developed and worsened over the days she was in hospital, and this brain injury was ultimately her immediate cause of death, the barrister said.
Inquiry to hear from Dawn Sturgess’ partner Charlie Rowley
The inquiry will hear evidence from Dawn Sturgess’s partner Charlie Rowley, about their life living together in the 16 months or so before her death.
Lead counsel Andrew O’Connor KC said: “In an interview that he gave after her death, Charlie Rowley described Dawn as ‘a lovely lady, she had a big heart, she’d help anyone if she could’.
Charlie has previously described their relationship as being “very happy, supportive and loving”, having said of his loss: “It’s my girlfriend I lost, my partner, my soulmate.”
Mr Rowley was also poisoned by the Novichok, received hospital treatment and suffered serious symptoms.
What issues will the inquiry examine?
The seven key issues that the inquiry will look at, according to its lead counsel, are:
- Dawn Sturgess’s life and the immediate circumstances of her death
- The broader factual circumstances of the poisoning of the Skripals and that of Dawn Sturgess
- Medical treatment, including the adequacy of the medical treatment provided to Dawn Sturgess.
- Responsibility for Skripal poisoning
- The Novichok and the bottle that it was found in.
- How did the bottle come to be in Dawn Sturgess’s possession?
- Was the poisoning of Dawn Sturgess preventable?
Inquiry’s chair is performing role of a coroner with enhanced powers, barrister says
Chair Lord Hughes of Ombersley is performing the role of a coroner with the added powers of the chair of a public inquiry, lead counsel Andrew O’Connor KC has noted.
He added: “Let me address the question head on” that is often asked about this case – why is it taking so long? Six years is a long time to wait for answers, especially for her family.
Legal process does take time, and this has been a complex example, including the decision to order and inquiry instead of an inquest, Mr O’Connor said, adding that the thoroughness of the work prior to this week’s hearings have also meant a longer wait.
“In this case, we will of necessity hear some highly sensitive evidence in closed session,” he added.
In order to minimise the number of hearings held behind closed doors, the chair has had to go through submissions line by line to guage what can be help in public, Mr O’Connor said.
Lead counsel asks whether mistakes were made in run-up to Dawn Sturgess’s death
Lead counsel Andrew O’Connor KC has begun by setting out the circumstances of Dawn Sturgess’s death.
Whether or not she was caught up in the attempt to poison the Skripals four months earlier will be for the inquiry to decide, he said.
He asks: can it be said that the nerve agent in both cases was identical and part of a single batch? Is it possible to say that the bottle is that one used in the attack on the Skripals? If so how did it come to be in her possession in Amesbury four months later, and should the bottle have been discovered in the meantime?
And if the UK government had taken sufficient steps to protect the Skripals, is it possible that mistakes might have been made which led to Sturgess’s death, he asks.
Dawn Sturgess may have been ‘caught in crossfire of outrageous assassination attempt’
The purpose of the inquiry is to investigate the circumstances of Dawn Sturgess’ death, lead counsel Andrew O’Connor KC has said.
It is no exaggeration to say the circumstances were extraordinary, he said.
Sturgess’s life was wholly removed from the world of politics and international relations, he said, adding that the circumstances of her life stand in stark contrast to the circumstances of her death, poisoned by a military grade poison.
The inquiry will look at whether an “innocent” British woman died after she was caught in the “crossfire of an illegal and outrageous international assassination attempt”, Mr O’Connor said
“Whether or not that is in fact what happened will, of course, be for you to determine,” he added.
Inquiry will ‘begin with a clean sheet’, chair says
Opening Monday’s hearing, chair Lord Hughes of Ombersley has said that the object of this inquiry is to begin with a clean sheet without making any judgement as to what has gone before.
“The object is to examine the evidence” and say what conclusions the evidence either does or doesn’t justify, Lord Hughes said.
The inquest into Dawn Sturgess’s death was replaced with an inquiry so as to be able to examine otherwise classified evidence, he added.
Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article
Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.