Salisbury poisonings were ordered by Putin to 'send a warning'

The Salisbury poisonings were never meant to be kept secret by the Russian state, the Foreign Office’s head of intelligence told a public inquiry today.

Jonathan Allen suggested Vladimir Putin likely authorised the bungled hit on former Russian double agent Sergei Skripal in March 2018.

But he said the manner in which he was attacked - with weapons-grade chemical Novichok, in a public place - meant it was likely Russia wanted to ‘send a warning’.

He drew parallels with the case of Alexander Litvinenko, the former Russian spy fatally poisoned with polonium in London in 2006.

He said of the Skripal attack: ‘I believe it wasn’t intended to remain covert entirely. It was meant to act as a warning, in my view.’

Both Mr Skripal and his daughter Yulia fell seriously ill after nerve agent Novichok was spread on the door handle to his home in the Wiltshire city.

The pair survived, alongside police officer Nick Bailey who became sick after he attended the scene.

Three months later, mother-of-three Dawn Sturgess, 44, died when she sprayed the deadly substance on her wrist believing it to be perfume, after her partner Charlie Rowley found what he thought was a designer fragrance.

Mr Allen, who has worked for the Foreign Office since 1997, said he felt Putin held the view that ‘traitors to the motherland should be eliminated’.

Mr Allen told the inquiry into what happened: ‘It is the Government’s view that ultimately the Russian state took a decision that Mr Skripal should be murdered and enacted a covert operation to achieve that in March 2018.

‘This was a Russian operation undertaken with authorisation from the highest levels of the Russian state.

‘The Government considered that the outcome of the operation against Mr Skripal was not intended to remain entirely covert.’

He added: ‘Use of a nerve agent in this way is clearly going to be traced back to Russia.

‘Even if it was not found in a post-mortem, the fact that it was sprayed on a door handle and that it persists in the environment means … every time someone touched that door handle they would have fallen ill.’

The inquiry previously heard how thousands of people could have been killed in the poisonings, on March 4 2018.

Mr Allen said the Novichok used was ‘not capable of being made by a non-state actor’.

He said: ‘There was extremely high purity of the Novichok that was found in this Salisbury case - it would need to be made in a highly sophisticated, state-run laboratory.’

And he said then-Prime Minister Theresa May acted quickly in accusing Russia publicly just over a week after Salisbury, when they refused to respond to initial questions about the case.

He said the Government was motivated not to dawdle due to the Litvinenko case. An inquiry later found his murder was likely authorised by Putin.

He told the inquiry: ‘We learnt from the Litvinenko experience in which Russia played all sorts of games, dragged its feet, played with both the police investigation and ultimately the inquiry, pretending it was going to co-operate and never doing so, so there was absolute clarity from the start that we were not going to let Russia string this out in the same way.’

He admitted there were some details so sensitive they could not be aired in public at the inquiry amid fears they could be used to harm national security, but would be disclosed privately.

Russia has always denied responsibility.

In September 2018, Scotland Yard charged the two GRU spies - who travelled under the names Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov - with the attempted murder of the Skripals and the poisoning of two Wiltshire Police officers, but not over the death of Ms Sturgess.

Chillingly, CCTV evidence suggested the pair may have crossed paths with the Skripals, not far from the former spy’s home as the alleged target and his daughter drove to the city centre for some food.

In a witness statement, Mr Skripal said he was convinced his attempted assassination was ordered by the Russian president.

Mr Skripal was a former GRU agent who was jailed in Russia in 2004 for espionage before being released in 2010 and moving to the UK as part of a prisoner swap.

The inquiry previously heard there was evidence he was supplying evidence to UK intelligence shortly before he was attacked, raising concerns about whether the authorities did enough to protect him.

The suspects later gave a much-derided interview to Russian state television denying involvement, claiming that they travelled to the UK to visit Salisbury cathedral and Stonehenge.

Evidence suggests, however, that the pair carried out at least four trips to Mr Skripal’s home over two days, travelling from their hotel in east London, before flying out of the UK the day the Skripals fell ill.

A third Russian, Sergey Fedotov, also a suspected GRU spy, was charged three years later in connection with the poisoning.

An international arrest warrant was issued for the trio, although Russia does not allow the extradition of its citizens meaning it is unlikely they will ever face trial in the UK.

The inquiry is due to conclude next week, with chairman Lord Hughes of Ombersley’s report findings expected towards the end of next year.