An official UK government inquiry has determined that Russian President Vladimir Putin bears “moral responsibility” for the death of Dawn Sturgess. She sadly died after being exposed to a highly toxic nerve agent, novichok. Russian operatives brought this nerve agent into the United Kingdom. They planned to use it in a foiled assassination attempt on former spy Sergei Skripal. Lord Hughes, who headed the inquiry, outlined the chronology of events leading to the death of Sturgess. It further highlighted the dangerous and negligent actions taken by the Russian agents.
Dawn Sturgess died from exposure to Novichok on July 8, 2018. She inadvertently sprayed herself with Novichok from a lethal perfume bottle Russian agents Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov had thrown away. The investigation revealed that these agents were part of a specialized team. This team is part of the GRU, Russia’s military intelligence agency responsible for Russia’s military foreign intelligence operations. Lord Hughes explains that this assassination operation must have been authorized at the top. This unmistakably ties Putin to the crime.
On March 4, 2018, Petrov and Boshirov smeared novichok on the door handle of Skripal’s front door in Salisbury. Having been assigned this mission, they travelled with a ‘Nina Ricci’ bottle containing the nerve agent to Wiltshire. This action lead eventually to the tragic death of Sturgess. As the inquiry continued, investigators discovered “overwhelming evidence” that these intelligence officers were operating on orders coming from their superiors back in Russia.
As U.K. Supreme Court Lord Hughes put it, the attack on Skripal was “an astonishingly reckless act.” He highlighted that using such a potent and toxic nerve agent in the public arena undoubtedly creates the possibility of exposing innocent people to dangerous toxins. After all, this risk was entirely predictable. The investigation discovered that an individual had incompetently disposed of the bottle containing novichok in a public place. This was just as the agents were departing Salisbury.
“Deploying a highly toxic nerve agent in a busy city was an astonishingly reckless act. The risk that others beyond the intended target might be killed or injured was entirely foreseeable.” – Lord Hughes
The investigation found a strong direct cause-and-effect connection between the actions of Petrov and Boshirov and Sturgess’s death. Lord Hughes ruled that all those connected with the attempt on her life were morally responsible for her murder. This extends to those who approved and helped carry out the operation.
“I conclude that all those involved in the assassination attempt… were morally responsible for Dawn Sturgess’s death.” – Lord Hughes
The entire inquiry was a projected £8.3 million. Unfortunately, the report exposed a number of other failings in the treatment of Sergei Skripal as an exchanged prisoner. Through its investigation, CTIVD found that additional security measures would have almost certainly not prevented the successful attack on Skripal. In hindsight, it was a valid judgement call that he was not at serious risk.
The subsequent NCA investigation concluded that Petrov and Boshirov carried a novichok-dipped bottle to Salisbury. Like the Novichoks, they would have used it to poison Skripal’s door handle. After finishing their mission, they irresponsibly threw the bottle away, exposing it to open eyes who might find it.
“There is a clear causative link between the use and discarding of the novichok by Petrov and Boshirov and the death of Dawn Sturgess.” – Lord Hughes
Sturgess’s tragic fate should remind us all of the dangers posed by state-sponsored assassination attempts using chemical agents. Lord Hughes characterized her as an “entirely innocent victim of the cruel and cynical acts of others.”
“She was the entirely innocent victim of the cruel and cynical acts of others.” – Lord Hughes
The inquiry’s findings, particularly its call for international accountability and response to acts of aggression involving chemical weapons, have sparked controversy. Debate over the implications of these new findings is already extremely contentious. Today, world leaders are increasingly coming under pressure to address state-sponsored acts of violence.