British state 'failed to keep public safe from Putin's assassins'

 The family of a woman killed in the Salisbury poisonings have accused the British state of failing to keep the public safe.

Relatives of Dawn Sturgess said the 2018 Novichok attack that killed her came after authorities failed to assess the risk that double agent Sergei Skripal, the intended target, faced from “Russian retaliation”.

An inquiry into the poisonings and Ms Sturgess’s death published on Thursday concluded that Vladimir Putin personally ordered the assassination attempt on Mr Skripral, a former spy, and his daughter Yulia, in a show of Russian strength.

Ms Sturgess, a mother of three, died after coming into contact with a contaminated perfume bottle that Russian agents had used to spray the Skripals with the military-grade nerve agent.

Her family said in a statement on Thursday: “Skripal was described by Vladimir Putin as a traitor and convicted of treason. Yet there were no sufficient and regular assessments of the risk he faced from Russian retaliation. That put the British public at risk, and led to Dawn’s death.

“The chair considered secret evidence from the Government and the UK intelligence services. Today’s report does not set out, publicly, how the risks that led to Dawn’s death will be prevented in the future. Adequate risk assessment of Skripal was not done; no protective steps were put in place. That is a serious concern, for us now, and for the future.”

Mr Skripal, a former Russian military officer and double agent for the British intelligence agencies, was attacked by two Russian GRU officers, Colonel Anatoliy Chepiga and Alexander Mishkin, with a third agent Denis Sergeev based in London.

In his report, Lord Hughes of Ombersley, the chairman of the inquiry, said: “The attack on Sergei Skripal by Russia was not, it seems clear, designed simply as revenge against him, but amounted to a public statement, for both international and domestic consumption, that Russia will act decisively in what it regards as its own interests.

“Notwithstanding the fact that the attack constituted a significant geopolitical risk, a public demonstration of Russian state power for both international and domestic impact is, I conclude, the most likely analysis of what occurred.”

Mr Skripal was not living under an alias at the time, with Lord Hughes finding that the level of risk against him had not been severe enough to justify forcing him to adopt a false identity.

The inquiry – parts of which were held in secret and will not be revealed – heard in a statement from Mr Skripal that he felt “quite safe” in Salisbury and did not see the need to adopt a false identity.

Lord Hughes stated in his report that it was unlikely the “brazen and reckless” Novichok attack could have been avoided by “additional security measures”, such as changing Mr Skripal’s name, severing any links with his family and “abandoning any form of normal life”.

But the senior judge criticised the lack of regular written assessments of the threat posed by the Putin regime to Mr Skripal, who blamed the Russian president for the attempt on his life. After the attack, Mr Skripal and his daughter, who was also contaminated and fell ill, moved to an undisclosed country where they are now living under assumed identities.

Lord Hughes wrote in his 173-page report: “It would require a very high level of risk to justify measures such as those suggested, but prior to 2018, there was nothing to indicate that level of risk.

“The reality is that the only security arrangements for Sergei Skripal which could have prevented the kind of attack which happened – employing a novel weapon in the form of a lethal nerve agent – would have been to hide him entirely from view. That would be justified only if the risk to him of assassination on UK soil stood at a high level, and it did not.

“Living under an alias is complicated and fraught with the risk of accidental disclosure; Sergei Skripal was not of a character readily to adapt to it. Such measures could only have been accomplished with his consent, and he plainly would not willingly have accepted them.”

While the £8m public inquiry made no substantial criticism of the British secret intelligence services or the police, the lack of protection for Mr Skripal was notable.

Matt Western, the Labour MP and chairman of the national security strategy committee, told the House of Commons: “Post-Litvinenko [Alexander, who was poisoned by the KGB in London], how can it be that our country can afford protection for, say, a former prime minister such as Liz Truss, but not for an asset such as such as and such as Sergei Skripal?”

Lord Hughes said in his report that warning the public against picking up any discarded objects on the ground after the attack on the Skripals would not have been reasonable.

Ms Sturgess’s boyfriend, Charlie Rowley, 52, had given her a sample bottle of Nina Ricci perfume he found four months after the attack. It had been discarded by the Russian spies after they targeted Mr Skripal.

Within moments of spraying herself, Ms Sturgess fell into a coma. She died eight days later of hypoxic ischaemic brain injury and intracranial brain haemorrhage. The inquiry was told the sample bottle “had enough Novichok to kill thousands”. The public were not advised about the dangers of picking up objects in Salisbury until after she was poisoned.

Lord Hughes said: “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. The risk was dramatically magnified by leaving in the city a bottle of Novichok disguised as perfume.”

Michael Mansfield KC, who represented Ms Sturgess’s family throughout the inquiry, said they felt “very uneasy about a situation where this could happen again”. He added that the lack of recommendations meant there was a real risk of more deaths, saying: “They do feel let down, because obviously it may not have ended up like this [if Mr Skripal had been protected].”

He added: “We should leave this building today feeling that the government of the day is on top of it and I don’t think they feel today that the government is on top of this – whoever is in charge and whoever has authority. Otherwise it would be in that report in no uncertain terms that we are all perfectly safe.”

After the report, the Foreign Office said the GRU, Russia’s military intelligence agency, had been sanctioned.

Yvette Cooper, the Foreign Secretary, has called for the Russian ambassador to the UK to be summoned to the Foreign Office to respond to the finding.

Sir Keir Starmer said: “The Salisbury poisonings shocked the nation and today’s findings are a grave reminder of the Kremlin’s disregard for innocent lives. Dawn’s needless death was a tragedy and will forever be a reminder of Russia’s reckless aggression. My thoughts are with her family and loved ones.”