The Litvinenko Inquiry

The Litvinenko Inquiry
credible, and I will not accept any part of their accounts in the absence of corroboration
from a reliable source of evidence. Second, and more importantly, I make a positive
finding that both men have deliberately attempted to mislead the recipients of the
various accounts they have given regarding crucial issues in the case. I infer that they
have done so in order to conceal their own actions. These findings support my overall
conclusion that Mr Lugovoy and Mr Kovtun poisoned Mr Litvinenko.
Timing of travel bookings
8.92 The three key events that took place in this case during October and early November
2006 were the three visits to London that I have described in Part 6 above – the first
visit made by Mr Lugovoy and Mr Kovtun, the second by Mr Lugovoy alone and the
third by a larger group including both Mr Lugovoy and Mr Kovtun.
8.93 As well as hearing evidence as to what took place during these visits, I also heard
evidence about the travel arrangements that had been made (e.g. flight and hotel
bookings) for each visit.
8.94 There are two points that emerged from this evidence that are worthy of mention.
8.95 First, it was striking that the timing of the first visit seemed to turn on Mr Kovtun’s
availability to travel. I have touched on this issue above, at paragraph 6.64.
8.96 Mr Lugovoy was the senior of the two men in terms of their business relationships.
His visa had been renewed in the summer, and he was therefore able to travel to the
United Kingdom (UK) whenever he wished. It is notable, therefore, that the bookings
for the flights and hotel rooms, which were both made in the days after Mr Kovtun’s
UK visa was issued on 5 October 2006, appear to have been held up until it was
known when Mr Kovtun would be able to make the trip. Although Mr Kovtun attended
business meetings when the trip to London did take place, there was nothing in the
evidence that I heard about those meetings to suggest that his attendance was in any
way essential.
8.97 I have already made a finding that Mr Lugovoy and Mr Kovtun poisoned Mr Litvinenko
with polonium 210 at their meeting in the Erinys boardroom on 16 October 2006,
during this first trip. The evidence about the timing of the bookings is at the very least
consistent with this finding, and I consider that it adds some weight to it. The evidence
suggests that the true purpose of the trip was not to attend a series of business
meetings at which Mr Kovtun would be no more than a mute observer, but rather, as I
have found, to attempt to poison Mr Litvinenko – an operation in which Mr Kovtun was
intended to play, and did play, a key role.
8.98 The second point concerns the timing of the decision that Mr Kovtun should join the
third trip to London. This is a point that is addressed at paragraphs 6.188 – 6.189
above. In the statement that he provided to the Inquiry, Mr Kovtun suggested that he
had not even contemplated flying to London on 1 November to join Mr Lugovoy and
the others until 30 October (see discussion at paragraph 6.244 above). That was not
true – the booking for his return flight from London to Moscow had been made several
days earlier on 27 October. I am satisfied that that was the time at which the decision
was made that Mr Kovtun would go to London.
8.99 That date of 27 October was midway through the trip that Mr Lugovoy made to
London alone, when he stayed in room 848 of the Sheraton Hotel. I am satisfied that
196