Salisbury victim Sergei Skripal has attributed the Novichok attack on his life to Russian President Vladimir Putin, stating his belief during the inquiry into Dawn Sturgess’s death. In a newly disclosed witness statement at the Salisbury hearing on Monday, Mr Skripal expressed his conviction that Putin “must have at least given permission for the attack” on him and his daughter Yulia in March 2018. The former Russian GRU intelligence agent, who was convicted in 2004 before being released in a prisoner exchange and relocating to the UK, suggested that any decision by a GRU commander involving such an operation would require Putin’s approval.
The Salisbury inquiry aims to determine whether Dawn Sturgess, who tragically passed away after coming into contact with the nerve agent in Amesbury in July 2018, was inadvertently caught in the aftermath of an international assassination attempt. Lead counsel Andrew O’Connor QC suggested that Sturgess’s death, resulting from the Russian-engineered nerve agent, was a consequence of an illegal attack following the attempted murder of the Skripals in Salisbury four months prior. The inquiry will shift to London later this month, seeking clarity on the incidents that transpired.
Following the poisoning incidents, it was revealed that Ms Sturgess’s death raised questions for her family as to why she did not survive, unlike the others poisoned with Novichok. Alleged erroneous information about Sturgess being a drug user had previously delayed the appropriate response to her condition, as Wiltshire Police issued an apology for misidentifying her. Furthermore, the potency of the Novichok in a discarded perfume bottle was highlighted as being potent enough to cause significant harm, prompting concerns around the potential mass casualties had the substance been dispersed in a public setting.
Notably, Mr Skripal is apprehensive about providing in-person testimony at the inquiry due to fears of further endangerment. His involvement in the inquiry has shed light on the profound significance of understanding the security measures taken to prevent the chemical attack on UK soil. Michael Mansfield KC, representing Sturgess’s family and Ms Sturgess’s partner, stressed the required accountability and transparency in addressing the broader implications of the poisoning incidents to uphold public confidence.
The inquiry’s proceedings, including statements implicating President Putin in the attack as sanctioned by the Russian government, have underlined the necessity for a thorough investigation to ensure justice for the victims and mitigate the risks posed by such heinous acts. The complexities surrounding the case serve as a reminder of the repercussions of international espionage and the imperative need for stringent measures to safeguard against similar threats in the future.