A public inquiry into the 2018 death of a British woman poisoned by a Soviet-developed nerve agent heard evidence suggesting Russian President Vladimir Putin authorized the Salisbury poisonings. The inquiry also revealed the perfume bottle contained enough poison to kill thousands.

Dawn Sturgess, a 44-year-old mother of three, died in July 2018 after spraying herself with what she thought was perfume from a discarded bottle containing the deadly chemical weapon. Her death followed a failed poison attack against former Russian double agent Sergei Skripal in Salisbury, southwest England.

The inquiry, which began on Monday at the Guildhall in Salisbury, heard from Jonathan Allen, a senior official at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), who provided a statement summarizing the UK government’s assessments on who was behind the poisonings.

“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,” Allen’s statement said.

The inquiry also heard from Skripal himself, who said he believed Putin was responsible. “I believe Putin makes all important decisions himself. I therefore think he must have at least given permission for the attack,” Skripal said in a further statement provided to the inquiry.

The inquiry heard the perfume bottle contained enough Novichok to poison “thousands” of people. “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,” Andrew O’Connor KC, counsel to the inquiry, said.

The inquiry is examining the circumstances of Sturgess’s death, which O’Connor called “extraordinary, unique.”

“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 said.

The inquiry will also look into whether the UK authorities took appropriate precautions in early 2018 to protect Mr Skripal from being attacked. O’Connor said the fact that Mr Skripal was a former senior GRU officer living in the UK “arguably placed him at some risk.”

The inquiry will sit for a number of weeks, moving between Salisbury and London. A final report is expected in 2025.

The Evidence Against Putin

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’s Perspective on the Attack

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.

Unanswered Questions and the Search for Justice

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.