Britain has announced fresh sanctions on Russia following the conclusions of a public inquiry into the 2018 Novichok poisonings.
Dawn Sturgess, 44, died after coming into contact with the nerve agent in Amesbury, Wiltshire, while her partner, Charlie Rowley, survived but with lasting ill-effects.
Sergei Skripal – the target of the original attack in Salisbury – his daughter Yulia, and police officer Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey were also poisoned.
Sir Keir Starmer said the incident “shocked the nation” and that the findings of Lord Anthony Hughes are “a grave reminder of the Kremlin’s disregard for innocent lives”.
Here are the most important conclusions which came out of the inquiry.
The attack was carried out by Russian agents
Salisbury Novichok poisoning suspects Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov are shown on CCTV (Photo: Metropolitan Police/Getty)Russian agents arrived in London from Moscow in March 2018 with the intention of assassinating Sergei Skripal, a former Russian military officer and double agent for British intelligence agencies, the inquiry concluded.
Skripal, now aged 74, had been imprisoned in Russia for treason charges but moved to the UK in a spy swap in 2010.
The three agents were Alexander Petrov, Ruslan Boshirov and Sergey Fedotov – all aliases – and all were members of GRU, Russia’s intelligence agency, in Unit 29155.
They were armed with the nerve agent Novichok, which was disguised in a bottle of “Nina Ricci” perfume.
Nerve agent smeared on front door
Skripal lived at a house on Christie Miller Road, a cul-de-sac near the centre of Salisbury.
Petrov and Boshirov travelled to Salisbury on 4 March 2018, and placed Novichok “on the handle of Sergei Skripal’s front door”, Lord Hughes said.
Novichok is a nerve agent which can be lethal in small amounts, slowing the heart and paralysing the respiratory system.
The movements of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia between 15:37 and 16:15 on 4 March 2018 (Photo: The Dawn Sturgess Inquiry/PA)Russia has been in possession of such nerve agents since they were developed by the Soviet Union.
Lord Hughes concluded that Petrov and Boshirov’s intention was that Skripal “would touch the door handle and that the Novichok would kill him.”
He added: “They must have been aware that others might also touch the door handle, most obviously Sergei Skripal’s daughter, Yulia, who they knew was also staying at the house at the time.”
The attack, Lord Hughes said, was a “public demonstration of Russian power”.
The attack was ordered by Vladimir Putin
Petrov, Boshirov and Fedotov were members of an operational team within theGRU – the Russian military intelligence agency responsible for foreign intelligence gathering.
“I am sure that, in conducting their attack on [Sergei] Skripal, they were acting on instructions,” Lord Hughes said.
“I have concluded that the operation to assassinate [Sergei] Skripal must have been authorised at the highest level, by [President] Putin.”
Lord Hughes said that all those involved in the assassination attempt, including those who gave them authorisation “were morally responsible” for the death of Sturgess.
The perfume bottle was disgarded by the Russian agents somewhere in Salisbury before they left the city.
It was picked up by Sturgess’ partner, Charlie Rowley, who gave it to her as a gift three months later in June 2018.
She sprayed Novichok onto herself and rubbed it into her wrists, unaware of the danger.
A public inquiry into the death of the Sturgess, who was poisoned by Russian nerve agent Novichok, has been published (Photo: Metropolitan Police/PA Wire)Lord Hughes added: “Deploying a highly toxic nerve agent in a busy city was an astonishingly reckless act.
“The risk that others beyond the intended target, Sergei Skripal, might be killed or injured was entirely foreseeable.
“That risk was dramatically magnified by leaving in the city a bottle of the Novichok disguised as perfume.”
There were failings in Skripal’s management
Skripal had been living under his real name in the UK for many years before the attempted assassination.
The inquiry had examined whether he should have been given more protection, given his past as a double agent.
“I have concluded that there were failings in [Sergei] Skripal’s management as an exchanged prisoner; in particular, sufficient, regular written assessments were not conducted,” said Lord Hughes.
“However, I do not think that the assessment that [Sergei] Skripal was not at significant risk of assassination by Russian personnel can be said to have been unreasonable, although, of course, events unhappily demonstrated that it was wrong.”
Lord Hughes said he did not think Skripal should have been subject to additional security measures.
The Skripal’s who were poisoned with the nerve agent in 2018“The only such measures which could have avoided the attack would have been such as to hide him completely with an entirely new identity, and to prevent him and his family from having any continued contact,” he said.
“As at 2018, the risk was not so severe as to demand such far-reaching precautions.”
In their statement, Sturgess’s family said it was a “serious concern” that an “adequate risk assessment of Skripal was not done” and “no protective steps were put in place”.
Not enough evidence of public health discussion
Lord Hughes criticised the lack of evidence he was able to gather about public health discussions.
He said it was clear that there had been considered whether to warn the public about picking up unknown objects after the attack on the Skripals in March 2018.
He said it was “reasonable” to conclude that no such message should be issued because it would have had to apply to a large area.
“What certainly should have happened, however, is that the discussions aboutthe point – which there must have been – and the decision about it should have been recorded, whether by minutes or otherwise,” he said.
“If that ordinary and simple procedure had been adopted, the difficulties which the Inquiry encountered in determining what had happened, and the difficulties which two witnesses had in remembering it, would have been avoided.”
Your next read
square NATIONAL SECURITY ExclusiveSuspected Russian spies entering UK using cargo ships
square SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDSToddlers with special needs to be identified at ‘family hubs’ before starting school
square NEWS ExclusiveSuspected spy staying in Dorset shepherd’s hut reported to counter-terror police
square EDUCATION ExclusivePrivate schools forced to end £62,000 charge for SEND pupils
More training for risk of nerve agents in UK
Although emergency services received chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) training before 2018, the Novichok attack has prompted wider training.
However, Lord Hughes says it “could and should have been more widely circulated”.
He said such training would not have saved the life of Sturgess but it could have had a “marginal contribution” to the poisoning suffered by Rowley.
Hence then, the article about the six most important revelations from the salisbury novichok attack report was published today ( ) and is available on inews ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( The six most important revelations from the Salisbury Novichok attack report )
Also on site :