The Litvinenko Inquiry

The Litvinenko Inquiry
9.170 It was a theme of the evidence of both these men that the trip to Moscow had not run
smoothly. They described a large number of incidents that occurred during their stay
in Moscow that, to them at least, seemed to demonstrate obstructiveness on the part
of their Russian colleagues. For example, the British investigators were told that only
one British investigator (rather than two) could sit in on interviews, that lists of questions
had to be provided in advance, and that they could not make their own separate
recordings of interviews. There was even an occasion on which Russian officials who
were driving to an interview location in the knowledge that British investigators were
following in a car behind drove fast and erratically in an apparent attempt to lose the
British team.
9.171 Further, particular difficulties were experienced in relation to the interviews of the two
key witnesses, Mr Kovtun and Mr Lugovoy. Interviews were cancelled at short notice
and then hastily rearranged, and when they did take place were rushed with limited
opportunity for the single British investigator present to ask questions. The British
team were told that the two men were being treated for radiation sickness, but when
they were interviewed they did not appear to be ill. Finally, when the interview tapes
that had been handed to the British investigators in Moscow were examined back
in London, it was discovered that there was no tape of Mr Lugovoy’s interview. The
Russian authorities had not provided any advance warning that there would be no
tape of this interview. 72
9.172 In his closing statement, Mr Horwell QC, who appeared on behalf of the Metropolitan
Police Service, made the following submissions about these events: 73
“Why be obstructive if there was nothing to hide?”
“The lack of full cooperation in Moscow with the interviews of Lugovoy and Kovtun:
stupid, petty obstructions placed in the way of the police officers who went to
interview them. The failure of the Russians to supply the tape of Lugovoy’s interview
perhaps says it all. The motivation obvious. The Russians wanted control of those
interviews, a control which was resurrected but a few days ago. Hardly a reaction
indicative of an interest in truth and justice.”
9.173 My observations on these events, and the inferences that may be drawn from them,
are as follows.
9.174 First, it is quite apparent that the British investigators did not receive the level of
cooperation in Moscow that they had hoped for, and that in consequence the enquiries
that they conducted during their stay there were not as full as they might otherwise
have been. It was clear to me that this was a matter that still rankles with those
involved, even now, several years after the event.
9.175 Second, there is no direct evidence as to the explanation for the conduct of the Russian
officials. I had hoped that one of the Russian investigators might have given evidence
to the Inquiry, in which case an explanation could have been sought, but this has not
transpired. I am well aware, however, that the procedures governing international
cooperation between police forces are complex and quite capable of giving rise to
misunderstandings. There are a number of possible explanations – good, bad and
indifferent – for what the British police saw as the obstructiveness of the Russian
officials. In the absence of any explanation from the Russian side, I do not think it
72
Mascall 29/67-69
73
Horwell 33/69-70
236