The Litvinenko Inquiry

Part 6 | Chapters 1 to 8 | The polonium trail – events in October and November 2006
heroin that would explain the preposterous and untruthful statements made by
witness D-3 in relation to me. I should be grateful if you would verify the fact that
the witness D-3 uses heroin.”
6.217 Mr Kovtun did not identify precisely what he meant by D3’s “preposterous and
untruthful statements”, and since he declined to give oral evidence to the Inquiry it
was not possible to ask him to be more specific. I assume that he rejects the entirety
of the alleged conversation that I have set out above.
6.218 Equally, the fact that D3 did not give oral evidence meant that I was unable to explore
with him Mr Kovtun’s allegations about his drug use, and what I take to be Mr Kovtun’s
contention that D3’s account of his conversation with Mr Kovtun was either imagined
or distorted as a result of having taken heroin that evening.
6.219 I will make my findings as to what I think really took place between Mr Kovtun and
D3 in Hamburg that evening when I set out my conclusions at the end of this Report.
Ultimately, this issue boils down to which of the two men has been truthful in the
accounts that they have given. That does not mean, of course, that those accounts
are all that I have to go on. The truthfulness of this part of Mr Kovtun’s evidence is
something that I can and must judge alongside the truthfulness of the rest of the
evidence that he has given. In this case, that includes his evidence as to how and why
he did in fact make contact with C2 after he arrived in London later that week. That is
an issue to which I will turn in the next chapter of this Part.
Mr Kovtun obtains C2’s phone number
6.220 In his 2 June 2015 witness statement, Mr Kovtun gave his account of how he obtained
C2’s telephone number. He said: 197
“During my visit to Hamburg in the period between 28 October and 1 November I
met my former employer, the owner of ‘Il Porto’ restaurant, [D4]. He gave me the
telephone number of [D7] (manager of the ‘Il Porto’ restaurant in Hamburg), and
[D7] passed on [C2]’s telephone number in Great Britain.”
6.221 The other evidence available to me suggests that this account is broadly accurate, but
that Mr Kovtun in fact obtained C2’s number from D6, and not D7.
6.222 D6 gave oral evidence by video link from Hamburg. 198 He said that he had formerly
worked at Il Porto as a barman and a waiter and that he had known Mr Kovtun during
his time there. He stated that Mr Kovtun had called him in 2006, explaining that he
had got D6’s phone number from their former boss, D4. Mr Kovtun had asked D6
whether he had a telephone number for C2 in England. D6 did not have C2’s number.
However, he said that he rang another former colleague from Il Porto days, D7, who
did have C2’s number. D6 explained that D7 had spoken to C2 and asked for his
consent to pass his number to Mr Kovtun; C2 had agreed. D6 said that D7 then
passed the number to him, and he had then texted C2’s number to Mr Kovtun. D6
said that this had all taken place in a single day. He could not remember the date, but
he thought that it was a day or two before a Union of European Football Associations
(UEFA) cup match. He also said that it was the day when Mr Kovtun was travelling to
the UK.
197
INQ021208 (page 11)
198
D6 30/2-22
153