The first day of the Dawn Sturgess Inquiry is over.

We heard from various lawyers who outlined what the inquiry will cover for the next few months - including prevention, preparedness, and response.

Many of them expressed their condolences to the family of Dawn Sturgess, before beginning statements.

For more on this story, you can listen to the Crime Next Door: The Salisbury Poisonings podcast, which will follow the inquiry as it develops, or read more in our explainer of what happened to Dawn Sturgess.

This page was edited by Emma Hallett, Chris Kelly, James Harness and Jamie Whitehead.

Your writers were Imogen James, Dawn Limbu, Adam Goldsmith with analysis from Dan O'Brien at the inquiry.

Today we heard the opening statements of the Dawn Sturgess Inquiry - kicking off the next few months that will examine her death and how it was handled.

A large part of today focussed on the earlier poisoning of the Skripals, and the men accused of the incident, in order to understand the background behind the death of Dawn Sturgess.

Here's the key points:

• Representatives for Dawn Sturgess, Counter Terrorism Policing, the government and a statement from victim Sergei Skripal blamed Russian President Vladimir Putin for the Novichok attacks
• Dawn Sturgess' family called for Putin himself to appear at the inquiry

• Counsel to the inquiry, Andrew O'Connor KC, described Sturgess as an "innocent victim, in the crossfire of an illegal and outrageous assassination attempt"
• He added that the nerve agent, that was found in a perfume bottle used by Sturgess, held enough to kill thousands
• The Skripal poisonings were also discussed at length. O'Connor said it was "not possible to inspect Dawn Sturgess' death properly, without understanding the Skripal poisoning"
• Michael Mansfield KC spoke for the Sturgess family. He says Wiltshire Police decided Sturgess and partner Charlie Rowley were suffering from drug overdoses, which had an effect on their medical treatment
• Charlie Rowley continues to suffer from long term injuries such as problems with his vision, balance and memory, says Adam Straw KC, representing the Sturgess family

Image source, Crown Copyright

Today’s final barrister is the lawyer representing Sergei and Yulia Skripal, Andrew Deakin KC.

Deakin begins by saying that the pair offer their condolences to Dawn Sturgess and her family.

The lawyer then thanks the emergency services on the Skripals’ behalf, before setting out some of the facts around how they came to be “attacked” by Novichok.

“They suffered serious injuries as a result”, he notes.

Deakin says: “Sergei and Yulia keenly await the outcome of this inquiry, they look forward to better understanding the circumstances of the Salisbury attack… And to being able to move on with their lives.”

The barrister finishes up his brief statement, and with that the inquiry adjourns until 10:00 BST tomorrow morning.

Image source, Crown Copyright

The inquiry has adjourned for the day, as the last of the opening statements have concluded.

Proceedings will resume tomorrow at 10:00 BST. Caroline Sturgess, Dawn's mother, will give evidence on day two of the inquiry.

Stay with us as we continue to bring you more updates and expert analysis.

Image source, Crown Copyright

Bridget Dolan KC is next to speak. She represents the South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust (Swaft).

Swaft is there "to be fully committed to your inquiry and to your terms of reference," she adds.

Dolan says they will be "open, constructive and honest" in the inquiry.

"We are acutely aware of the importance of this inquiry to Dawn's family," Dolan adds. She has spoken privately to Ms Sturgess' parents and apologises, but does so again in public.

"It's hard to imagine Sir, what it must feel like" for Ms Sturgess' family in the room now, Dolan says. "No family would want to be in a position to have to experience their loved one's death as the heart of a public inquiry."

"We do sincerely hope that you get all the answers that you want from this process."

In Amesbury, she says Swaft people continued to offer aid to Charlie Rowley despite having recognised the "extremely serious risk to themselves if as they correctly suspected Charlie had been exposed to military grade chemical weapon," she adds.

Since then, Swaft has reflected and reviewed the events, Dolan adds.

"Swaft is not complacent."

Dawn Limbu
Live reporter

Image source, Crown Copyright

John Beggs KC, counsel for the Wiltshire Police chief, speaks now. He begins his statement by repeating his sincere condolences to Dawn's family.

He outlines how this public inquiry will hear about Wiltshire Police's response to the the two incidents in Salisbury and Amesbury and the lessons learned.

Mr Beggs says Wiltshire Police has engaged in a "full debrief", facilitated by the College of Policing, to ensure they are best prepared to respond to a similar event in the future. He added that the force is "committed to giving the inquiry full assistance".

Image source, Crown Copyright

Wrapping up, McGahey tackles the issue of “hindsight”.

The barrister acknowledges that inquiries inevitably benefit from hindsight, but she stresses that this should not “unduly colour” the inquiry’s assessment of what steps could and should have been taken.

She finishes: “The government has done, and the government will continue to do everything it can to assist this inquiry and to help the family have as many answers as it can.”

Cathryn McGahey KC, counsel for the government, speaks now.

She says "the government believes that Ms Sturgess was the innocent and unintended victim of a cruel, deliberate and reckless attack on Sergei Skripal."

The government believes the attack was undertaken by the Russians, and President Putin authorised it, she re-iterates.

"Immediately after the attack, the government maintained an open mind as to who was responsible," McGahey says.

She says however, suspicions were derived as Skripal was a former Russian spy, and that Novichok is known to have been delivered by the Soviet Union.

"Within a week... the evidence led the then prime minister... to make the statement in parliament" - the statement blamed the Russian's for the poisoning.

She says in April 2018, the then national security adviser, Mark Sedwill, wrote to the NATO secretary general. In it, he identified three reasons why the UK thought Russia was responsible.

Sedwill outlines these as Novichok being something used and developed by the Russian federation, the country's record of state-sponsored assassination, and thirdly the target being a former Russian intelligence officer.

"There is no plausible alternative explanation," other than Russia being responsible, she cites Sedwill as writing.

Dawn Limbu
Live reporter

Ms Giovanetti continues to explain that the investigation into the poisonings in Salisbury and Amesbury in 2018 have resulted in charges against three suspects. They are all Russian nationals, linked to Russia's military intelligence agency known as the GRU.

The Russian suspects’ aliases are Alexander Petrov, Ruslan Boshirov and Sergey Fedotov. Their real identities are believed to be Anatoliy Chepiga, Alexander Mishkin and Denis Sergeev respectively.

Ms Giovanetti says the CTP considers that these three individuals are "responsible for death of Dawn and Charlie's poisoning".

On 19th July 2018, the CPS authorised charges against Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov for conspiracy to murder Sergei Skripal, three counts of attempted murder in respect of Sergei and Yulia Skripal and Nick Bailey, two counts of grievous bodily harm with intent, in respect of Yulia Skripal and Nick Bailey, and one count of use or possession of a chemical weapon.

Ms Giovanetti says: "CTP considers that these three individuals are responsible for the subsequent death of Dawn Sturgess and the poisoning of her partner, Charlie Rowley.

"CTP will continue to work closely with partners, including the CPS, to hold these individuals accountable for their actions."

Giovannetti moves on to discuss the oral evidence that Operation Verbasco received.

The lawyer explains how her team received evidence from three different operations; one each for the poisonings of Sergei Skripal and another that began as a covert operation, and looked more broadly into who was responsible for the poisonings in Salisbury in 2018.

Then lists some of the witnesses that are due to give evidence on these operations.

One of these is commander Dominic Murphy, who she says will address matters including the poisoning of the Skripals, as well as how the response to this event was handled.

He will also address how Charlie was able to get hold of the bottle contaminated with Novichok, and the subsequent movements he made with Dawn before she fell ill.

We will also hear from Det Ch Insp Philip Murphy, who “will explain the circumstances and events around the poisoning of Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley".

Giovannetti says we will also hear from an expert on how the search for Novichok developed as news began to unfold of Dawn Sturgess’ poisoning.

We won’t be able to hear every single detail about these operations, though.

The barrister notes: “It is very likely that topics will arise in respect of which the witness might wish to give a fuller explanation or a more detailed explanation, but is unable to do so in open session because of the need to protect the public."

Image source, Crown Copyright

Lisa Giovannetti KC is first to speak after the break. She represents the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

They handle counter terrorism policing, who are closely involved into the investigations into the Novichok poisonings.

She begins by "reiterating the sincere condolences of both forces and all the officers involved" to the family of Dawn Sturgess.

She says they are "determined to bring to justice those responsible for her death".

Since the beginning of this inquiry on 18 November 2021, the operation has been expanded to "more than 40 officers" to get to this point.

The scale of the investigation into the poisonings is "difficult to overstate" she says, as it involves cooperation between police and partners "across government, and extensive enquiries both in the UK and internationally".

She says they have reviewed "documents with care" in preparation, but not all material has been put into open proceedings as it is too "sensitive".

Giovannetti says they have made as many documents open as possible.

The inquiry is back after a short break.

Keep following this page for more updates. You can continue to watch live at the top of this page.

Mansfield turns to the immediate medical response to Dawn Sturgess falling ill, and addresses some of the lessons to be learned from this.

He says “Important practice was not shared”, after doctors were reportedly prohibited from speaking about their response to Skripal’s poisoning.

Mansfield accepts that Dawn’s poisoning was “unsurvivable” and adds, “the responsibility for that lies with the Russian state and Mr Putin”, he says.

But, he says that this inquiry’s aim is to learn from the emergency response to the crisis in Salisbury.

“The family are eager to ensure that Dawn’s death was not in vain,” he continues.

The barrister says strong public interest in exposing any failings in emergency response.

“Hundreds if not thousands of people were exposed to a grave risk,” he says.

Thirdly, attacks such as this “are likely to happen again”, and says the fact that these incidents will be rare and unusual is exactly why emergency professionals should prepare and “take a precautionary approach”.

“Dawn and her family and the wider public are entitled to that.”

Mansfield continues to describe how Sturgess had no records suggesting that she was an illicit drug user, while Charlie Rowley confirmed at the time that she didn’t take drugs.

He says, therefore, that it is a concern that nerve agent poisoning was not suspected.

“The police decided that Dawn and Charlie’s condition was a quite straightforward overdose,” he observes.

He says this decision was made “on the basis that these were two well-known drug addicts”, but Mansfield dismisses this and points to Dawn’s clean record.

“Wiltshire Police have now accepted that Dawn should not have been characterised in this way,” he says.He says the police have apologised and the family accept this apology.

The inquiry has now paused for a short break - it will be back shortly.

As a reminder, the feed is on a ten minute delay for security reasons, so we - along with you - are watching it with a lag.

Michael Mansfield KC says the second aspect of what they are submitting to the inquiry is the response to the poisoning.

The Sturgess family "are anxious" that the inquiry grapples with how incidents like this will be dealt with in the future, he says.

The inquiry has obtained documents that paint a "picture of some concern" around the responses.

He says they describe "organisational disputes and disagreements over tactical and strategic decision making, and a lack of clarity on how to secure essential, scientific advice."

The documents also show "secrecy, withholding of information and over-centralisation of decision making in central government hampered the response," Mansfield adds.

He says a report made in the aftermath of the Skripal attacks says that the "most comprehensive source of information to local police was Wikipedia," in the early stages of the operation.

Mansfield continues on the topic of assessing what measures were taken to protect Sergei Skripal, and the public around him, from an evident Russian threat.

He says that there was an absence of “the most basic of protective measures”, and this enabled the Russian agents to walk up to his front door and apply the deadly nerve agent.

Mansfield lists a number of questions that he says should have been answered by British security services.

The barrister asks why nothing appears to have been done to scrutinise Visa applications or check false names.

Ultimately, he reasserts that there is little evidence that steps were taken to “mitigate the threats” to Skripal from his background with Russia.

None of the local police forces were told that someone liked Skripal - along with the risks he faced - was living in their local area.

“There is no plausible explanation from any quarter about the absence of precautions to protect Mr Skripal and the wider community,” the lawyer adds.

Mansfield says: “It cannot be widely argued that such an explanation is a state secret, and that the public are not entitled to know how such a blatant omission has arisen."

Dawn Limbu
Live reporter

Mansfield is questioning the detail of Sergei Skripal's risk assessment, given his history with Russian intelligence.

"The evidence suggests a risk to Mr Skripal that was real, substantial and foreseeable" he says, questioning whether the United Kingdom recognised the collateral risk to the community in which he resided.

He continues to question whether changes have been made in his risk assessment since this attack.

"None of the questions are addressed, let alone answered," he says.

Mansfield says Dawn Sturgess' family have been "extraordinarily patient in waiting for these questions to be asked". He maintains that there is no evidence to identify the risk to the wider community and ensure that any protection was put into place.

He refers to evidence suggesting Skripal was offered a change of name and was offered CCTV, but Skripal declined.

Why was Skripal not moved and given a different name, Mansfield asks.

"Mr Skripal, a known double agent and target of the president of Russia was living openly, with his family in the United Kingdom. All under his own name? None of this we say is unreasonable, or disproportionate, or inappropriate".

Mansfield says Skripal was easily identifiable to would-be attackers.

"We appreciate that it can't be utterly fool proof but you have to start somewhere. But there seems to have been no start anywhere."

Image source, Crown Copyright

We are now hearing from Michael Mansfield KC, also representing the Sturgess family.

He says "the poisoning of Mr Skripal was no bolt from the blue," as he was a "clear and obvious target of an attack from Mr Putin and his henchman".

Mansfield says Sergei Skripal was an "important asset" to Russia, and from Skripal's interviews shows he understood this.

"His defection to the west as part of a prisoner exchange singled him out as a traitor to Mr Putin's warped conception of the motherland," he adds.

Mansfield says the spy swap Skripal was involved in cannot be taken as an exoneration.

Skripal's daughter said he was "considered like a traitor", and as the inquiry has heard, Mansfield re-iterates Putin thought this too.

Mansfield goes on to outline the reasons it is believed Skripal was a target at the time of the poisonings - including stating that Russia had already shown it was "willing to carry out targeted assassinations of defection abroad."

Mansfield then outlines his questions for the inquiry.

He asks "was there a failure to prevent a chemical weapon attack?"

He also asks if thousands of people were put at risk of death. These are questions "to which the public deserve answers".

Adam Straw KC provides a few more details on Skripal's spying background, before turning to the issue of the Novichok used to poison him.

The lawyer representing the Sturgess family alleges that Russia has trained personnel from special units to apply Novichok, and places the blame squarely on Vladimir Putin.

Straw says that the Sturgess family invites Putin to be called as a witness to the inquiry in Salisbury.

He says Putin should "look Dawn's family in the eyes and answer the evidence against him."

The judge acknowledges this is an intriguing suggestion, and Straw accepts the chances of the Russian President's appearance "may be very very small."

Straw finishes his opening statement calling this a tragedy for Dawn Sturgess' family, her partner and her friends.

She was, he adds, living a quiet life in rural Salisbury, and her family is now stunned to be the collateral damage of global spy wars.

Straw says this "felt like James Bond meets the archers". But, he observes, the consequences could have been even more disastrous, and even capable of causing a "massacre".

Dawn Limbu
Live reporter

Adam Straw KC continues, describing how Charlie Rowley's symptoms were very similar to Dawn's, but his condition improved and he was discharged on 2 July 2018. He has continued to suffer long term injuries such as problems with his vision, balance and memory, says Straw.

The Novichok which poisoned Dawn Sturgess and Rowley leads back to the Skripals, Straw adds. Organisations found that the same type of Novichok was present in the Nina Ricci bottle, continues Straw, and was present on the door handle of the Skripal's house on Christie Miller Road.

The Skripals were found collapsed on a bench at the Maltings in Salisbury, having fallen ill at around 15:30 BST on the 4th March 2018. Their symptoms were very similar to those later suffered by Dawn and Charlie. The highest level of Novichok was found on the Skripal's front door, the inquiry heard.