Russian agents may have deliberately discarded a bottle of the deadly nerve agent novichok, used in the assassination attempt of former spy Sergei Skripal, in Salisbury in a bid to undermine UK security, the High Court today heard.
The claim was made during a legal challenge by the family of Dawn Sturgess, 44, who died in 2018 after coming into contact with novichok in a fake perfume bottle which her partner had found in a park.
The family are embroiled in a High Court action in a bid to get ‘key questions’ asked at Ms Sturgess’ inquest.
It comes claims by the family that David Ridley, the senior coroner for Wiltshire, has wrongly decided to limit what issues will be considered at an inquest.
During a hearing at the High Court today, the family’s barrister claimed the actions of the agents on the ground, as well as those who masterminded the plot from Moscow, could have led to ‘many hundreds of deaths’.
According to the Guardian, he also referenced then UK prime minister, Theresa May, in September 2018 in which she said: ‘This chemical weapons attack on our soil was part of a wider pattern of Russian behaviour that persistently seeks to undermine our security and that of our allies around the world.’
The claim was made during a legal challenge by the family of Dawn Sturgess (pictured), 44, who died in 2018 after coming into contact with novichok in a fake perfume bottle which her partner had found in a park
Mr Sturgess died in hospital in Salisbury, Wiltshire, in July 2018 after collapsing at her partner Charlie Rowley’s home in Amesbury, Wiltshire (pictured)
Mr Sturgess died in hospital in Salisbury, Wiltshire, in July 2018 after collapsing at her partner Charlie Rowley’s home in Amesbury, Wiltshire.
A police investigation after her death revealed she had inadvertently sprayed novichok on herself from a fake perfume bottle which Mr Rowley had found on the ground in a park.
The deadly nerve agent had been used in an assassination attempt on Russian spy turned British double agent Sergei Skripal in Salisbury.
Retired Mr Skripal and his daughter Yulia Skripal both ended up in intensive care after they were found slumped on a bench in the Wiltshire city in March 2018.
Both survived the poisoning after nearly a month in hospital, while a police officer, DS Nick Bailey, who was also poisoned, also survived.
Russian military intelligence agents known as Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov were accused of carrying out the attack – though both denied being a part of the assassination attempt in an interview on Russia TV.
Russian military intelligence agents known as Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov were accused of carrying out the attack – though both denied being a part of the assassination attempt in an interview on Russia TV
Now more than two years later, the family of Ms Sturgess have launched a legal challenge claiming Mr Ridley, the senior coroner for Wiltshire, has wrongly decided to limit what issues will be considered at an inquest.
Lawyers representing family members have suggested to two judges that the inquest will be the only opportunity to publicly investigate a ‘matter of almost unparalleled public concern’.
They say Mr Ridley has made a flawed decision about the scope of an inquest which should be quashed.
Home Secretary Priti Patel disagrees and says Mr Ridley was entitled to reach the decisions he reached. She also says Mr Ridley is keeping the scope of the inquest under review.
Lord Justice Bean and Mr Justice Lewis are examining rival arguments at a virtual High Court hearing due to end on Wednesday.
Representing the family, Michael Mansfield QC, said the question of who was responsible for the use of Novichok was a matter of ‘almost unparalleled public concern’.
But Mr Mansfield said the coroner had decided that he would not consider whether any Russian state agents, other than the suspects were responsible for Ms Sturgess’s death, or issues relating to the source of the novichok.
He said that meant the inquest would not investigate ‘credible allegations’ that other Russian state agents were involved or ‘key questions’ about how ‘the operation’ was arranged.
‘The use of novichok in Salisbury was the first aggressive use of a nerve agent in Europe since the Second World War,’ said Mr Mansfield in a written case summary.
‘It put hundreds of members of the British public at risk and killed Ms Sturgess.
‘The issue of who was responsible for it is a matter of almost unparalleled public concern.
‘There is no realistic prospect that the two suspects will face a criminal trial in the UK or that the Russian state will carry out a comprehensive investigation, and no public inquiry into these events has been established.
Lawyers representing family members have suggested to two High Court (pictured) judges that the inquest will be the only opportunity to publicly investigate a ‘matter of almost unparalleled public concern’
‘Accordingly, the impact of the senior coroner’s decision is that there will be no further public investigation of these important issues.’
Mr Mansfield argued that Mr Ridley’s ‘proposed approach’ would soon ‘become unworkable and ineffective’.
Sir James Eadie QC, who is representing the Home Secretary, said the judges should dismiss the application.
‘The background to Ms Sturgess’s death is the attempted murder of Sergei and Yulia Skripal on March 4 2018,’ he said, in a written case outline.
‘Ms Sturgess was not a target of that attempt; she appears to have been the tragic victim of chance, having come into contact on June 30 2018 with novichok discarded by the attackers.’
Sir James argued that the coroner was entitled to reach the decisions he had reached regarding the scope of the inquest.
Mr Ridley had also made it clear that he was not reaching a final conclusion but would keep the scope of the inquest under review, Sir James added.