A boy fell ill after Salisbury poisoning victim Sergei Skripal gave him bread to feed ducks, an inquiry has heard.
The young boy, who has not been named, and two others he was with, got sick after the former Russian spy handed him the bread in Salisbury city centre on 4 March 2018, the public inquiry was told.
After Mr Skripal and his daughter Yulia collapsed on a bench nearby shortly afterwards and the incident unfolded, the boy and his friends were traced by public health authorities.
They said they were unwell for a day or two afterwards but no traces of novichok were found in their systems.
The new details came to light on Monday at the inquiry into the death of Dawn Sturgess, who died after handling a perfume bottle containing the Russian nerve agent in nearby Amesbury in July 2018.
The Skripals and responding police officer Nick Bailey fell gravely ill after coming into contact with the novichok months earlier in March.
All three survived, along with Ms Sturgess’s boyfriend Charlie Rowley, who had unwittingly given her the perfume bottle.
British authorities blame the Russian state for the Salisbury poisonings.
Image: Sergei and Yulia Skripal. Pic: Shutterstock
The public inquiry, which is being chaired by former Supreme Court judge Lord Hughes of Ombersley, is now hearing evidence at the International Dispute Resolution Centre in London – after opening at the Salisbury Guildhall earlier this month.
On Monday, the inquiry heard how a timeline of events given by Mr Skripal’s neighbours Ross and Maureen Cassidy helped police uncover when the Skripals’ home was likely contaminated with the deadly substance.
Image: Dawn Sturgess. Pic: PA
Skripal said Putin would ‘get him’
Mr Cassidy quickly became friends with Mr Skripal after he moved to Salisbury in 2010, he said in evidence.
His revealed that, during their friendship, Mr Skripal had told him President Vladimir Putin would “get him” if he returned to his home country.
The Cassidys had driven Mr Skripal to Heathrow Airport on 3 March, the day before he was poisoned, to pick up his daughter.
During the trip, he believed he was followed.
On the return journey on the M3, he said he saw what he thought was a black BMW undercover police car apparently tailing him for about 10 minutes.
After passing what he believed was a white unmarked police car and slowing down, he then noticed the black BMW keeping pace, either in front or behind him, “for a really long distance”, he said.
He told the inquiry: “Because of what happened the following day, I put two and two together and came up with some conclusion that we were probably being followed.”
The inquiry heard, however, that police later identified the two vehicles and it was determined they were engaged in “entirely unconnected” police activities at the time.
When Mr and Mrs Cassidy dropped the Skripals at their home later, Mrs Cassidy went into the house. She said she couldn’t remember using the door handle but later tested negative for novichok.
Commander Dominic Murphy, of the Met Police’s Counter Terrorism Command, said it meant that the novichok was “likely to have been applied to that door” between “6pm on the Saturday (3 March) and 1.30pm on the Sunday (4 March), when (the Skripals) then left”.
On 4 March, the Skripals were seen on CCTV driving into Salisbury city centre, handing the boy some bread to feed the ducks by a pond, then having a drink in The Mill pub, before going for a meal at Zizzi.
They left the restaurant after starting to feel unwell and were later discovered collapsed on a park bench.
Image: Sergei and Yulia Skripal on CCTV from 4 March 2018. Pic: The Dawn Sturgess Inquiry/PA
On Tuesday, a former chief nurse for the British Army told the inquiry how she ended up rushing to the Skripals’ aid.
Alison McCourt described Russian claims she was partially responsible for the poisonings as “malicious”, adding she was only in Salisbury because her children had convinced her to stop at Nando’s.
“I had no prior knowledge of the individuals on the bench – I had never seen them before in my life, nor did I know who they were,” she said.
“In fact, having seen the couple on the bench, my initial instinct had in fact been not to get involved as it looked to me as if they were under the influence of drugs. It was only the chiding of my daughter that made me think I ought to go to their aid.
“It goes without saying that I had no idea a nerve agent, nor any other poison, had been the cause of the couple’s presentation.
“Given my training, had I known that a nerve agent had been used, I would not have exposed myself to any potential risk of personal harm. I had no equipment, medicine, nor PPE with me.”
But what about his style ‘prince’? Some want that ditched too.
It’s a complicated but not impossible process. Andrew could, of course, just stop using it voluntarily.
Some want him to give up his home, too. For a non-working royal, the stately Royal Lodge, with its plum position on the Windsor Estate, is an uncomfortable optic.
With the reputation of the monarchy at risk, William does not want to appear weak. He’s putting loyalty to “the firm” firmly above his familial relationships.
Prince Andrew has always strongly denied the allegations, and restated on Friday: “I vigorously deny the accusations against me”. Sky News has approached him for comment on the fresh allegations set out in the Mail on Sunday.
But with Virginia Giuffre’s tragic death and posthumous memoir due out on Tuesday, Buckingham Palace will be braced for more scandal.
When Andrew gave up his titles, there was certainly a sense of relief.
There is now a sense of dread over what else could emerge.
Sky News’ royal commentator has explained why Prince Andrew has not given up being called a prince – while another expert has said “the decent thing” for him to do would be “go into exile” overseas.
Andrew announced on Friday that he would stop using his Duke of York title and relinquish all other honours, including his role as a Royal Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter.
However, he will continue to be known as a prince.
Royal commentator Alastair Bruce said that while Andrew’s other honours and titles were conferred to him later in life, he became a prince when he was born to Elizabeth II while she was queen.
He told presenter Kamali Melbourne: “I think […] that style was quite special to the late Queen,” he said. “And perhaps the King, for the moment, thinks that can be left alone.
“It’s a matter really for the King, for the royal household, perhaps with the guidance and advice of government, which I’m sure they are taking.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:49
Who pushed Andrew to drop his titles?
Since Andrew’s announcement, there has been speculation over whether any further measures will be taken – and one author has now called for him to “go into exile”.
More on Prince Andrew
Related Topics:
Andrew Lownie, author of The Rise And Fall Of The House Of York, said: “The only way the story will go away is if he leaves Royal Lodge, goes into exile abroad with his ex-wife, and is basically stripped of all his honours, including Prince Andrew.”
Royal Lodge is the Windsor mansion Andrew lives in with his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, who has also lost her Duchess of York title.
Image: Andrew and his former wife continue to live on the Windsor estate. Pic: Reuters
Mr Lownie continued: “He makes out he’s an honourable man and he’s putting country and family first. Well, if he is, then the optics look terrible for the monarchy. A non-working royal in a 30-room Crown Estate property with a peppercorn rent.
“He should do the decent thing and go. And frankly, he should go into exile.”
Mr Lownie added if the Royal Family “genuinely want to cut links, they have to put pressure on him to voluntarily get out”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:11
Windsor’s take on Prince Andrew
Andrew’s decision to stop using his titles was announced amid renewed scrutiny of his relationship with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, and fresh stories linked to the late Virginia Giuffre.
Ms Giuffre, who was trafficked by Epstein, alleged she was sexually assaulted by Andrew on three occasions – which he has always vigorously denied.
Bereaved families whose loved ones took their own lives after buying the same poison online have written to the prime minister demanding urgent action.
Warning: This article contains references to suicide
The group claims there have been “multiple missed opportunities” to shut down online forums that promote suicide and dangerous substances.
They warn that over 100 people have died after purchasing a particular poison in the last 10 years.
Among those who have written to Downing Street is Pete Aitken, whose daughter Hannah was 22 when she took her own life after buying the poison from a website.
Hannah was autistic and had ADHD. She was treated in six different mental health hospitals over a four-year period.
He said: “Autistic people seem to be most vulnerable to this kind of sort of poison and, you know, wanting to take their lives.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:05
Pete Aitken speaking to Sky News
Sky News is not naming the poison, but Hannah was able to buy a kilogram of it online. Just one gram is potentially fatal.
“There’s this disparity between the concentration required for its legitimate use and that required for ending your life. And it seems quite clear you could make a distinction,” Mr Aitken said.
Analysis from the Molly Rose Foundation and the group Families and Survivors to Prevent Online Suicide Harms says at least 133 people have died because of the poison. It also says coroners have written warnings about the substance on 65 separate occasions.
The report accuses the Home Office of failing to strengthen the regulation of the poison and says not enough is being done to close dangerous suicide forums online.
Lawyers representing the group want a public inquiry into the deaths.
In a joint letter to the prime minister, the families said: “We write as families whose loved ones were let down by a state that was too slow to respond to the threat.
“This series of failings requires a statutory response, not just to understand why our loved ones died but also to prevent more lives being lost in a similar way.”
The group’s lawyer, Merry Varney, from Leigh Day, said: “The government is rightly committed to preventing deaths through suicide, yet despite repeated warnings of the risks posed by an easily accessible substance, fatal in small quantities and essentially advertised on online forums, no meaningful steps have been taken.”
Image: Hannah’s dad is one of the family members to have signed the letter
A government spokesperson said: “Suicide devastates families and we are unequivocal about the responsibilities online services have to keep people safe on their platforms.
“Under the Online Safety Act, services must take action to prevent users from accessing illegal suicide and self-harm content and ensure children are protected from harmful content that promotes it.
“If they fail to do so, they can expect to face robust enforcement, including substantial fines.”
They added that the position is “closely monitored and reportable under the Poisons Act, meaning retailers must alert authorities if they suspect it is being bought to cause harm”.
“We will continue to keep dangerous substances under review to ensure the right safeguards are in place,” they said.
Anyone feeling emotionally distressed or suicidal can call Samaritans for help on 116 123 or email jo@samaritans.org in the UK. In the US, call the Samaritans branch in your area or 1 (800) 273-TALK.