The Litvinenko Inquiry

The Litvinenko Inquiry
it is logical to assume that it was part of a routine, and in all the circumstances it is
reasonable to assume that the routine was connected with the preparation and/or the
disposal of polonium 210.
8.79 I have already expressed my view that room 382 of the Millennium Hotel was used to
handle the polonium 210 that killed Mr Litvinenko. Given the similar findings in room
107 of the Best Western Hotel, it is a reasonable assumption that something similar
occurred there. I have referred above to the scientific evidence which shows that
Mr Litvinenko was poisoned on an occasion prior to 1 November 2006, and to other
evidence that tends to suggest that this occasion might have been the Erinys meeting
on 16 October. Given, additionally, (a) my finding that Mr Litvinenko was poisoned
on 1 November by Mr Lugovoy and Mr Kovtun; and (b) the similarity between the
findings of primary contamination at room 107 of the Best Western Hotel and room
382 of the Millennium Hotel, I make the further findings that Mr Litvinenko was also
poisoned with polonium 210 by Mr Lugovoy and Mr Kovtun at the Erinys meeting on
16 October 2006, and that the polonium 210 used on that occasion was prepared
and/or disposed of in the bathroom of room 107 of the Best Western Hotel.
8.80 For completeness, I note that the primary contamination found in the bathroom of
room 848 of the Sheraton Hotel was found not in the sink, but in the bin. Primary
contamination was also found on towels in the hotel laundry. It is perhaps significant
in this regard that there is no other evidence of an attempt being made to poison
Mr Litvinenko during this period (for example, no primary contamination was found in
the Palm Court bar at the hotel, where Mr Litvinenko appears to have met Mr Lugovoy
on two occasions during the latter’s stay). There is insufficient evidence for me to
make any findings about what happened at the Sheraton Hotel, but I observe that the
primary contamination found there was consistent with Mr Lugovoy having spilled the
polonium 210 in the course of handling it, and then mopping it up with the towels that
were subsequently found in the laundry.
Other evidence indicating Lugovoy and Kovtun’s involvement
8.81 I turn to consider the other evidential matters that I consider support my findings that
Mr Litvinenko was poisoned by Mr Lugovoy and Mr Kovtun.
Accounts given by Lugovoy and Kovtun
8.82 Neither Mr Lugovoy nor, in the end, Mr Kovtun, gave oral evidence to the Inquiry.
However, both have made public statements concerning the case since 2006 and
Mr Kovtun provided the Inquiry with a witness statement. I admitted this material in
evidence, and have referred to it extensively.
8.83 I should make it clear that I do not regard the simple fact that Mr Lugovoy and Mr Kovtun
did not give evidence before me as evidence that in itself supports the proposition that
they poisoned Mr Litvinenko. There was some debate about this matter, but in the
end all core participants agreed that I should not draw any adverse inferences from
the fact that neither man has given evidence before me (see Appendix 1, paragraph
123). I do not do so.
8.84 That said, as I have observed on a number of occasions during my review of the
evidence, the fact that Mr Lugovoy and Mr Kovtun did not give oral evidence means
that I am left without answers to questions that they would have been asked had they
194