The family of Dawn Sturgess say they were ‘stunned’ to find out that she died as part of the ‘collateral damage of global spy wars’, an inquiry has heard.
The 44-year-old was caught in a ‘game of Russian roulette’ when she accidentally sprayed the deadly nerve agent Novichok on herself in July 2018, lawyers for her family have claimed.
The mother-of-three had been given the bottle of substance after her partner Charlie Rowley found the abandoned nerve agent disguised in a Nina Ricci Premier Jour perfume bottle.
It came months after the botched assassination of double agent Sergei Skripal, 73, and his daughter Yulia, 39, in March that year, who both came into contact with the same substance but survived.
Today the inquiry into the Salisbury Novichok poisonings began at Salisbury Guildhall, with representatives for the family even asking for Russian president Vladimir Putin to be called to give evidence in the proceedings amid accusations that the substance had been discarded by Kremlin agents.
The inquiry is set to look into who was responsible for the poisoning, the extent of Russian state responsibility, and whether UK authorities took appropriate precautions to protect the Skripals and the public from being attacked.
Novichok, which is a military-grade poison developed by Russian government agencies in the final years of the Cold War, was found discarded in Amesbury, Wiltshire, by Mr Rowley, who brought it home as a gift.
Speaking at the hearing Adam Straw KC, representing Ms Sturgess’s family, said: ‘Leaving what appeared to be a genuine perfume bottle that contained enough Novichok to kill many thousands of people was a game of Russian roulette, that put the UK public at grave risk.
‘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.’
In an unorthodox move, Mr Straw KC called on inquiry chairman Lord Hughes of Ombersley to call Putin as a witness.
The inquiry chairman said: ‘That’s an intriguing suggestion. I could issue an invitation. Do I have any power whatever to enforce it?’
But Mr Straw replied: ‘No.’
It came after a witness statement made by Mr Skripal was read out to the court, in which he blamed Putin for the attempt on his life, adding that once the Russian state decided to kill someone, ‘they will find you anywhere’.
Although Mr Skripal and his daughter have been exempt from attending the hearing due to concerns over their safety, pre-prepared witness statements from the pair are being heard.
‘After I left Russia, I lived quite a normal life for almost eight years. I continued relationships with Russian friends and family after I left Russia. Some came to visit me in Great Britain and, as far as I am aware, they did not face problems.
‘If I had gone back to Russia and something bad happened to me I would not have been surprised.
‘A pardon is only a piece of paper when in Russia, but so far as I am aware, an exchange of prisoners is normally respected between states.
‘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. Any GRU commander taking a decision like this without Putin’s permission would have been severely punished.
‘That he ordered the attack is my private opinion, based on my years of experience and my analysis of the continuous degradation of Russia. I do not have concrete evidence to support this.
‘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
‘I have always thought poison is a KGB technique because it is not honourable. GRU relations with the KGB and later the FSB were generally bad while I was working in the GRU and we did not cooperate so I have not myself seen evidence of the KGB using poison.
‘I think Yulia was right in principle when she said: ‘If [the Russian government] want to kill you they will find a way anywhere’.
‘Nobody can be protected 100 per cent from an assassin, especially one who plans carefully or is prepared to die.’
Mr Skripal and his daughter Yulia are thought to have been poisoned by Kremlin agents by spreading Novichok on the door handle of their home in nearby Salisbury before the suspects disposed of the bottle. The Skripals survived.
The suspects later gave a much-derided interview to Russian state television denying involvement, claiming that they travelled to the UK to visit Salisbury cathedral and Stonehenge.
Andrew O’Connor KC, lead counsel to the inquiry, said Ms Sturgess was ‘an innocent victim in the crossfire of an illegal, outrageous international assassination attempt’.
In an opening statement, he said: ‘The evidence will suggest that this bottle, which we shall hear contained enough poison to kill 1,000s of people, must earlier have been left somewhere a public place, creating obvious risk that someone would find it.
‘You may conclude that those who discarded the bottle in this way acted with a grotesque disregard for human life.
He said it was ‘no exaggeration to say that the circumstances of Dawn Sturgess’s death were extraordinary’.
He added: ‘Ms Sturgess lived a life that was fully removed from the worlds of politics and international issues.’
There was a noticeable police presence around the city centre as proceedings began today.
Neither of the Skripals will be called to give evidence to the inquiry amid extraordinary measures to protect them from possible further harm if Vladimir Putin’s agents can determine the secret location they are now living.
Inquiry chairman Lord Hughes of Ombersley also ordered that video and audio of the Skripals being interviewed by police must not be played, as the footage could be used to identify them now.
And, in an unprecedented move, documents containing sensitive information will be redacted before they are entered into the inquiry’s IT system over fears the Kremlin could otherwise hack the files to create a hit-list of MI5 and MI6 officers and counter-terrorism detectives.
The inquiry opened more than six years after the Skripals were discovered slumped on a park bench in the Maltings area of the city in what was initially believed to be a possible drugs overdose.
Russian assassins targeted the Skripals hours earlier. Although the father and daughter survived, Ms Sturgess died after she sprayed the chemical on her hands and face, thinking it was perfume three months later.
Police believe the two GRU (military intelligence) officers had thrown it away near the Skripals’ house, with Ms Sturgess’s partner, Mr Rowley, picking it up and taking it home.
Russia has denied all involvement in the deaths and criticised the inquiry itself, while Baroness Theresa May, Prime Minister during the time of the poisonings, last week admitted ‘justice is highly unlikely to happen’ for those affected.
The 2021 inquest into Ms Sturgess’s death was converted into a public inquiry the following year by then-Home Secretary Priti Patel, meaning that highly-sensitive classified information can be heard in secret sessions.
The family of Ms Sturgess – including her two sons and daughter, and her partner, Mr Rowley, 51 – had urged the judge to order the Skripals to give evidence in person as they had questions to direct to them.
Novichok was secretly developed by the Soviet Union during the height of the Cold war in the 1970s and 1980s.
Communist scientists developed the poison so it would not be able to be detected by Nato’s chemical detection equipment.
They come in the form of a ultra-fine powder, Novichok is up to eight times more potent than the deadly VX gas.
Victims who are poisoned by the powder suffer muscle spasms, breathing problems and then cardiac arrest.
There is a known antidote to the nerve agent – atropine can block the poison.
But doctors find it very tricky to administer the antidote because the dose would have to be so high it could prove fatal for the person.
But Lord Hughes ruled that the risk to the Skripals – who are living under police protection – was too great. He said: ‘The overwhelming risk is of physical attack on one or both the Skripals. An attack similar to that which appears to have taken place in 2018 remains a real risk.’
The judge said the pair giving evidence remotely was risky as their ‘integrated security arrangements could not be maintained’.
Even if they delivered testimony from a secure location via an ‘electronic link immune to interception’, taking them to and from it was a risk, he said.
Lord Hughes also ordered that police interview footage should not be shown in public as it would show ‘mannerisms, speech characteristics and details of appearance’ that would help Putin’s spies to identify them now. He added: ‘I am satisfied that there would be real danger of identification.’
In September 2018, Scotland Yard charged the two GRU spies – who travelled under the names Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov – with the attempted murder of the Skripals and the poisoning of two Wiltshire Police officers, but not over the death of Ms Sturgess.
A third Russian, Sergey Fedotov, also a suspected GRU spy, was charged three years later in connection with the poisoning.
An international arrest warrant was issued for the trio, although Russia does not allow the extradition of its citizens meaning it is unlikely they will ever face trial in the UK.
The inquiry will spend a week in Salisbury before moving to London, where hearings will conclude in early December.
Lord Hughes’ final report is not expected until well into next year.