What legal or disciplinary actions, if any, have been taken against Craig Murray for his statements about the Skripals?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Craig Murray has publicly promoted sceptical and alternative accounts of the Skripal poisoning since 2018 and continues to publish and speak about it on his website and media appearances into 2025 [1] [2]. Available sources in this packet show no new criminal convictions or professional disciplinary sanctions directly for his Skripal statements since his earlier controversies; reporting and entries note blog posts, public talks and at least one retraction of a mistaken claim about CCTV photos [3] [1].
1. A long-running public contrarian on Skripal — and still vocal
Craig Murray has repeatedly questioned the "official" narrative of the 2018 Salisbury Novichok incident, publishing articles, hosting talks and appearing on outlets such as UK Column and his own blog through 2025 [1] [2]. His site lists long-form pieces like "The Skripal Novichok Hoax" and he featured in a UK Column programme discussing alternative analyses of the case [1] [4].
2. Record of specific errors, and at least one correction
Murray has made factual claims that were later revised: in 2018 he argued that Metropolitan Police CCTV photos of the suspects were "impossible" because they appeared to show the same place and time, a claim the Met contradicted; Murray later retracted and corrected that post [3]. That episode is documented in the Wikipedia summary included among the sources [3].
3. Legal and disciplinary actions in the sources — what is present
The documents provided do not show any new criminal prosecution, libel judgment, or professional disciplinary ruling taken against Murray specifically for his Skripal-related statements in 2018–2025. The materials here catalogue his ongoing blogging, public talks and legal activity on other matters (for example legal challenges relating to Palestine Action) but do not record sanctions tied to the Skripal commentary [5] [6] [7].
4. What the sources do record about Murray’s legal history (contextual but not Skripal-specific)
Murray’s public profile includes prior legal controversies unrelated to Skripal that provide context for why readers might expect legal pushback: he has a history of provocative disclosures (e.g., publishing government memos in 2005) and of contesting state actions, and in 2025 he is engaged in legal challenges linked to political activism [3] [5] [6]. Those items help explain why he remains a visible dissident voice but they are not evidence of disciplinary action over the Skripal claims [3] [5].
5. Media and commentary: polarized responses, not formal sanctions
Analyses and opinion pieces in the provided selection show sharp disagreement over Murray’s approach. Some commentators praise his sceptical work; others characterise his Skripal coverage as conspiratorial or “bizarre,” cataloguing a wide range of theories he has floated [8]. The sources show reputational debate and criticism, but criticism and op-eds are distinct from formal legal or professional discipline [8].
6. Limitations of available reporting — crucial gaps
The packet of sources does not include court records, police statements about investigations into Murray’s statements, or official regulatory rulings from press or professional bodies concerning his Skripal material; therefore it is not possible from these sources to definitively state that no action exists beyond what is reported here. Available sources do not mention any libel judgments, police investigations, or press-regulator sanctions tied to his Skripal commentary in this selection (not found in current reporting).
7. Competing narratives and potential agendas
Murray’s critics frame his work as reckless or conspiratorial; his defenders present him as a rare independent investigator willing to challenge state narratives [8] [2]. His own site and allied outlets amplify sceptical takes [1] [2]. Readers should note that outlets and commentators have differing agendas: Murray’s website promotes his perspective, UK Column is a platform for critical alternative narratives, and op-eds range from supportive to sharply critical [1] [2] [8].
8. Bottom line for the question asked
Based on the documents provided, Craig Murray remains an active critic of the official Skripal account and has sometimes issued corrections when challenged, but these sources do not record any legal prosecutions or formal professional disciplinary actions taken against him specifically for his statements about the Skripals up to late 2025 [3] [1]. If you want conclusive confirmation about prosecutions or regulator decisions, that requires consulting court records, police statements or press-regulator databases beyond the materials supplied here (not found in current reporting).