The UK government believes that the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, personally 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 in which he spells out that the British government has concluded the nerve agent attack was so sensitive that Putin 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”.
He said she lived a life that was “wholly removed from the worlds of politics and international relations”, but died “an unnatural and a wholly unexpected death, poisoned by a military-grade chemical weapon”.
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, creating the obvious risk that someone would find it and take it home.”
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.”
O’Connor told the court that Jonathan Allen, a senior official at the FCDO, had provided a statement summarising the UK government’s “current assessments regarding responsibility for the poisoning”.
His statement says: “In light of the required seniority under Russian law to approve assassinations of suspected terrorists 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.”
O’Connor said 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 that 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 had received a presidential pardon and was a free man with no convictions under Russian law. I never thought the Russian regime would try to murder me in Great Britain … I knew of no specific threat.
“I believe Putin makes all important decisions himself. I therefore think he must have at least given permission for the attack on Yulia and me.
“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 and likes reading books about it.”
Skripal said he had felt safe in the UK and had not wanted special security measures. He said: “I did not have a house security alarm or sensor activated security lights and I do not remember either of these being raised with me. CCTV was recommended but I declined this because I did not want to make my house conspicuous or live under surveillance.”
The inquiry was told that the Skripals were poisoned after novichok was smeared on the door handle of the former spy’s home. But 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.
Before the start of the hearings, which are due to last until December, Sturgess’s parents, Stan and Caroline, told the Guardian they hoped the inquiry would answer far-reaching questions about how the tragedy unfolded and allow the family, finally, to grieve fully for her.
The inquiry continues.