The Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal: What Laws Have Been Broken?

     

Sergei Skripal is a former Russian double agent who now resides in Salisbury. In Russia, he was convicted of spying for British Intelligence and sentenced to 13 years in prison. He was exchanged in a 'spy swap' in 2010, and was flown to the UK. On 4th March, Skripal and his daughter Yulia were discovered slumped over on a park bench in Salisbury town centre. Witnesses described the condition of the Skripals as horrifying, with Yulia frothing at the mouth, ‘her eyes wide open but completely white’.

Emergency services took the pair to hospital, taking samples (the taking of which was subject to a legal case in the Court of Protection) which were analysed by the Defence, Science and Technology laboratory at Porton Down. The laboratory confirmed that they had been poisoned with ‘Novichok’, a military grade nerve agent developed by Russia.

Segei and Yulia Skripal have been in critical condition for a considerable length of time but have since stabilised. A policeman, Nick Bailey was also hospitalised with suspected poisoning and was in a serious condition, but has been discharged.

The UK Government has stated that it suspects Russia to be responsible for the attack, as Novichok is so dangerous it requires expertise and a highly advanced, state-run laboratory to produce it. Due to Russia’s previous conduct in sponsoring assassinations on former intelligence officers, the government stated either the attack was directly sponsored by Russia, or they had recklessly lost control of Novichok which had been developed by them. They responded by expelling 23 Russian diplomats who are suspected to be undeclared intelligence officers, to suspend any planned high-level contact with Russia and the UK, and to develop proposals to create more robust defences against hostile state activity.

Potential offences in the UK

Facts, other than those provided above, are scant. Current details point towards the front door of Skripals home being used in some way as the point of exposure. Very little other than that is known. It appears at this stage that there is a variety of criminal offences with which the suspect(s) could be charged. A blog post written in Crimeline Complete details these potential offences. A summary is provided here.

The most likely and obvious charge is attempted murder. Attempted murder requires the intention to kill, though if either Sergei or Yulia Skripal do not survive, a charge of murder would present itself. Generally, an attempt requires an act that is more than merely preparatory, under s.1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. Grievous bodily harm (S.18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861) and administering a noxious substance (s.23 OAPA 1861) are suggested in the blog as potential offences as well. Attempted murder as well as grievous bodily harm under s.18 carry maximum life sentences. Administering a noxious substance under s.23 carries a maximum sentence of 10 years.

A less commonly used piece of legislation called the Chemical Weapons Act 1996 may also be engaged. Under the Act, s.2 prohibits, amongst other things, a person using, developing, producing, possessing and participating in the transfer of a chemical weapon. Like attempted murder and s.18, the maximum sentence for this offence is also life imprisonment.

The post argues that the offence is unlikely to engage the Terrorism Act 2000, as s.1 of the Act defines terrorism as the attack has the ‘purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause’, as well as the attack being designed to intimidate the public or a section of the public. Though it would not be impossible to argue the latter, the former, of advancing an ideological cause, does not comfortably fit within the set of facts currently available.

International law

Russia and the UK are signatories of the Chemical Weapons Convention 1997. As the Convention is policed by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the UK has invited the OPCW’s scientists to independently verify the finding of Novichok determined by Porton Down. Jonathan Allen, a British Deputy Ambassador at the UN, accused Russia of various breaches of the Convention, such as the failure to declare Novichok production and failures in destroying stockpiles of both Novichok and other chemical weapons in breach of the Convention.

Russia denies involvement, accusing the UK of a ‘dirty information war’, requesting that samples should be shared with Russian authorities to verify its claims. Russia claimed paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the Convention entitled Russia to be contacted for clarification regarding issues that raise doubt over compliance. However, this has been dismissed by British Ambassador Peter Wilson, stating that no such provision exists requiring the sharing of samples. The OPCW will conduct independent verification instead.

It could also be argued that the Human Rights Convention haas been breached, specifically Article 2 protecting the right to life. Both the UK and Russia are signatories to the aforementioned Convention. If the poisoning in this case is found to be a state sponsored assassination, Article 2 would, as is perhaps obvious, be breached.