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.

Image source, Crown Copyright

The inquiry resumes as Andrew O’Connor KC gets to his feet.

The barrister completes his opening statement and goes over formalities about when the rest of the hearings will take place.

Some evidence, he says, will be heard in private “closed hearings” for security purposes, and some witnesses will also be allowed to give testimony anonymously.

These measures, O’Connor stresses, are “limited” and won’t impact greatly on the need for transparency.

Next Adam Straw KC - the lawyer representing the Sturgess family - steps up and sets out a statement made on their behalf.

He recounts the details that we heard earlier, about how Dawn Sturgess applied the Novichok poison mistakenly by spraying a liquid from a perfume bottle on herself, before falling ill.

Straw describes how Sturgess was placed into a coma after being rushed to hospital, and never recovered consciousness before she died.

The lawyer then moves onto how Dawn's partner Charlie Rowley came into contact with Novichok after firstly spilling it on himself - which he washed off - before later becoming re-contaminated when he entered their property.

The inquiry hears how Rowley now has “problems with his legs, vision, balance and memory” as a result of being poisoned.

Dan O'Brien
Reporting from the inquiry

Today’s opening session hasn’t been calling witnesses - it has been setting out the key questions for the inquiry to address.

What were the exact circumstances of Dawn’s death; how closely can that perfume bottle and the Novichok within it be linked with certainty to the attack on the Skripals four months earlier; what evidence is there to attribute responsibility for that attack; could Dawn’s medical treatment have been any different?

Ultimately, in the words of the lead counsel Andrew O’Connor KC, “was the poisoning of Dawn Sturgess preventable?”

This morning we were presented with CCTV images never previously seen of the Skripals and their movements around Salisbury on the day they became ill; of the suspected Russian GRU agents walking around Salisbury; and of Dawn herself on the day she was given the perfume bottle months later, wearing a sun hat and pink dress.

The Inquiry was also shown transcripts of Sergei Skripal’s police interview taken during his time in Salisbury District Hospital, as well as an updated statement he has made for this inquiry, in which he clearly believes Putin himself is ultimately responsible for the attack.

Will the inquiry hear enough evidence to come to the same view?

Image source, Crown Copyright

The inquiry is just returning from its lunch break, and is resuming now.Follow along with us here, and you can also watch proceedings by pressing Watch live at the top of the page.

Stay with us for the key moments and analysis.

Former British Prime Minister, Theresa May, tells the BBC she hopes that the inquiry will bring truth to the friends and family of Dawn Sturgess.

Speaking on Crime Next Door: The Salisbury Poisonings podcast, May says the suspects have "evaded justice".

• Dawn Sturgess, 44, was born in Salisbury, and had three children and "a close and supportive family and also a strong network of friends"
• She was an "innocent victim" caught in the crossfire of an "illegal and outrageous international assassination attempt", said Andrew O'Connor KC, the inquiry lawyer. "It's no exaggeration to say the circumstances of Dawn Sturgess' death were extraordinary," he added
• Sturgess had applied a deadly nerve agent called Novichok to herself, thinking that it was a bottle of perfume. O'Connor said the bottle had enough poison to kill thousands of people
• She suffered from heart failure, but brain damage sustained from a lack of oxygen was the "immediate cause" of her death
• Her death came four months after a man called Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were also poisoned with Novichok in Salisbury
• Skripal was a man in his 60s, with a Russian military background. His daughter, Yulia, had travelled from Russia to visit her father
• Speaking to the inquiry, Sergei Skripal claimed that Russian president Vladimir Putin was behind the poisonings
• ·A letter from former UK national security adviser, Mark Sedwill, written in April 2018 says: "Only Russia has the technical means, operational experience and motive for the attack on Skripals"

Stay with us, the inquiry will be resuming shortly.

Imogen James
Live reporter

Before the inquiry broke for lunch we heard more from Sergei Skripal, focussing on his security arrangements prior to the March 2018 poisoning.

He says "my life was normal" around the time of the attack.

He says he did not know which organisations in the UK were in charge of his security, but that he believes there were "some precautions in place".

Skripal says he does not remember his discussions about personal security concretely, but that he wanted "to lead as normal a life as possible, including maintaining my personal and family relationships."

He says "I felt quite safe there," in his home in Salisbury. He declined CCTV as he "did not want to make my house conspicuous or live under surveillance."

O'Connor says this statement demands more answers about risk assessments and the UK Government measures surrounding him.

The inquiry has adjourned for a break. It will resume at 14:15 BST.

Stay with us for further analysis, and we'll return to the inquiry when it resumes.

Imogen James
Live reporter

The counsel to the inquiry says they will also look at preventability.

He says they will examine if the bottle could have been found before Dawn Sturgess' death, and will look into the clean up exercise of the Skripal poisonings.

If the bottle of perfume was picked up shortly after the poisonings by Charlie Rowley, then it was not possible to prevent it.

But, O'Connor says, if authorities knew that there was a possibility Novichok "might have been discarded in Salisbury," they "might, perhaps should" have conducted reasonable searches and alerted the public to avoid picking up any containers that were not theirs.

O'Connor says the inquiry will look into this and see if more could have been done.

The second of the preventability issues relates to the Skripal poisonings, and whether the UK authorities "took appropriate precautions in early 2018 to protect Skripal from being attacked", O'Connor states.

Imogen James
Live reporter

Image source, AFP

The inquiry is now discussing how the bottle that held the Novichok that affected Dawn Sturgess came into her possession. It was given to her by partner Charley Rowley.

"This is important," O'Connor says, because it led to Sturgess' death and because it will show if her death "could or should" have been prevented.

And on whether the bottle "could or should" have been found in the clean up following the Skripal incident, O'Connor says it "depends obviously on where it was and how long it stayed there".

"It is therefore unfortunate that the evidence we have on this issue is somewhat sparse," O'Connor adds.

He says Charlie Rowley was not able to "provide a clear answer" about where he got the perfume. He later said that he got it in a charity shop bin.

"We are not optimistic that we will arrive as a single, convincing explanation," the lawyer says.

Imogen James
Live reporter

The inquiry is shown a document from the Russian embassy released in March 2023 about the Salisbury poisonings.

The document says it is unclear what information Britain has about the poison and it also "raises questions about the source of Novichok," O'Connor says.

It outlines "inconsistencies" in the British narrative, including how both the Skripal's fell ill at the same time and how nobody who helped them fell in.

O'Connor says the inquiry will address the issued raised.

Imogen James
Live reporter

The inquiry now see's evidence from Jonathan Allen, who was a director general in the UK's foreign, commonwealth and development office.

His evidence states: "In light of the required seniority under Russian law to approve assassinations of suspected terrorists outside Russia... it is HMG's [His Majesty's Government's] view that President Putin authorised the operation."