Former Russian double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, will not be called to give evidence at the Salisbury poisonings inquiry over fears it could lead to another attack on them.
They were targeted by Russian state operatives with the nerve agent, novichok, in March 2018, but survived the attempt on their lives. Moscow has denied any involvement.
Dawn Sturgess, 44, died four months after being exposed to the chemical weapon in a discarded perfume bottle in the town of Amesbury in Wiltshire.
Former police officer Nick Bailey, who was the first person to enter Mr Skripal’s home after the attack, was also poisoned and survived, as did Ms Sturgess’s boyfriend Charlie Rowley.
The judge leading the inquiry said the risk of another attack on the Skripals “is not properly controllable” as appearing in person could lead to their identities and whereabouts being exposed.
Lord Hughes of Ombersley said proper security would not be possible if they attended the inquiry and warned they must not give evidence remotely as their location could be worked out.
He also ruled out playing recordings of the 2018 interviews with either or both of the Skripals as it would “enormously add to the risk that someone will identify them”.
In his ruling this month, he said there was an “overwhelming risk” of a physical attack on the Skripals.
He went on: “There is every reason to be satisfied that an attack similar to that which appears to have taken place in 2018 remains a real risk… if either Sergei or Yulia can be identified and their current whereabouts discovered.”
In June, a preliminary hearing for the Dawn Sturgess Inquiry at the Royal Courts of Justice heard that the Sturgess family wanted the Skripals to give oral evidence to address “unanswered questions”.
The judge wrote that the Skripals have provided further statements addressing specific questions the family had raised and that transcripts of police interviews with the father and daughter had been disclosed.
Lord Hughes of Ombersley went on: “I am quite satisfied that the risk to both Skripals of physical attack clearly outweighs the advantage to the inquiry of their giving oral evidence.
Read more:
What is Novichok?
Miracle recovery: How the Skripals survived
Salisbury poisonings five years on
“The disruption and intrusion into their private lives, whilst alone not sufficient to dictate the conclusion that they should not give evidence, adds to the balance a further reason why they should not.”
The public inquiry hearing is due to begin at The Guildhall in Salisbury on 14 October.
Two Russian GRU agents, identified by UK police as being behind the attack, and using the names Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov, were charged in their absence with attempted murder, despite claiming on Russian TV that they were on a sightseeing tour to Salisbury Cathedral.
A third GRU agent, using the name Sergey Fedotov, who appears to have been the unit’s commander, was also charged in his absence with attempted murder.
L-R Suspects who used the names of Sergey Fedotov, Ruslan Boshirov and Alexander Petrov. Pics: UK Counter Terrorism Policing
All three are presumed to be in Russia, which has no extradition treaty with the UK.
In 2021, police issued a further appeal for information, with renewed focus on the movements of the perfume bottle in which the novichok was stored, the location of which was unknown between the attack on the Skripals on 4 March 2018 and when Mr Rowley said he found it on 27 June 2018.
