The Litvinenko Inquiry

The Litvinenko Inquiry
that President Putin had allowed Mr Lugovoy, “a prominent public role on Russian TV”
was a telling indication that he “has had favour shown to him by the President”.
9.181 In fact, during the course of the Inquiry’s open hearings an event took place in Russia
that provided unambiguous evidence of the esteem in which President Putin holds
Mr Lugovoy. In March 2015, President Putin awarded a state honour to Mr Lugovoy.
A Reuters report carrying the headline “Russia’s Putin honours suspect in Litvinenko
poisoning” stated as follows: 77
“Russian President Vladimir Putin awarded a state honour to a man suspected by
Britain of using radioactive polonium to poison Kremlin critic Alexander Litvinenko
in London nearly a decade ago. The medal ‘for services to the fatherland’, second
degree, was given to Andrei Lugovoy for his contribution to developing Russia’s
Parliament, according to a citation posted on the official state bulletin.”
9.182 Mr Emmerson QC submitted that the fact that the award to Mr Lugovoy had been
made: 78
“... on Day 22 of this Inquiry, after a substantial amount of evidence has been
called establishing Mr Lugovoy’s involvement in the murder of Mr Litvinenko, is
clearly both a provocation by President Putin and the clearest possible message
that he identifies himself with Mr Lugovoy.”
9.183 I have already expressed my conclusion that Mr Lugovoy, with Mr Kovtun, poisoned
Mr Litvinenko. Whether President Putin knew about this at the time is a matter to
which I shall come. However, I do accept that Mr Lugovoy’s award, given in particular
its timing and public nature, can only be interpreted as a deliberate sign of public
support made to him by President Putin.
9.184 Where does this analysis lead? There is clear evidence, as I have said, that the
Russian State in general, and President Putin in particular, has supported Mr Lugovoy
in the years since 2006. There is less evidence relating to Mr Kovtun, but it would
certainly appear to be the case that he has suffered no ill consequences as a result
of the allegations made against him in this country in connection with Mr Litvinenko’s
death.
9.185 It can be inferred from these facts that the Russian State approves of Mr Litvinenko’s
killing, or at least that it wishes to signal approval for it.
9.186 It would be a further step, however, to conclude that the conduct of the Russian State
towards Mr Lugovoy and Mr Kovtun since Mr Litvinenko’s death demonstrates that it
was actually responsible in some way for his death. In my judgement, that would be a
step too far. Taken on its own, this evidence does not support that conclusion.
77
Mascall 22/130
78
Emmerson 22/1-2
238