The Litvinenko Inquiry

The Litvinenko Inquiry
26. On 13 December 2012, I held that further pre-inquest hearing. On 17 January 2013, I
gave a ruling on the issues argued at the hearing, including on whether or not certain
issues should remain included in the scope of the inquest. The ruling on the scope
of the inquest can be found on the Inquiry website. A list of issues was subsequently
published.
27. On 17 December 2012, solicitors acting for the Investigative Committee of the Russian
Federation (ICRF) applied for interested person status. The application was made on
the basis that the ICRF was the Russian federal state agency responsible for the
pre-trial investigation of the suspected murder of Mr Litvinenko and the suspected
attempted murders of Mr Lugovoy and Mr Kovtun. By active participation in the inquest,
according to the application, the ICRF hoped to contribute to and to advance both my
and its own understanding of the causes and circumstances of Mr Litvinenko’s death.
Although Russian law would not permit the ICRF to provide all of its files to me, as
an interested person the ICRF would wish to provide as much of the information from
its investigation as Russian law would allow and as the investigator recognised as
permissible. On 31 January 2013, I granted interested person status to the ICRF.
28. On 21 December 2012, solicitors acting for Marina Litvinenko asked for a listing for full
argument of her application that the Russian Federation be designated an interested
person in the inquest. A submission to that effect had been made at the hearing on
20 September 2012, and repeated at the hearing on 13 December 2012. The Russian
Federation had not itself applied for interested person status. On 24 January 2013,
I gave a provisional ruling on the issue and invited further written submissions. On
25 March 2013, I gave a ruling refusing the application that the Russian Federation
be designated an interested person.
Government disclosure and public interest
immunity
29. On 11 January 2012, the Solicitor to the Inquest made a written request for disclosure
of documentation by the government. Disclosure was requested of documents held
by all UK government departments and agencies relating to the circumstances of
Mr Litvinenko’s death. Specific requests were made for any documents relating to
the circumstances of Mr Litvinenko’s poisoning and death; the history of any contact
between Mr Litvinenko and any UK government departments or agencies; and any
records of risks and/or threats to him prior to his death, together with any action taken
or considered in response.
30. In response to this request, the government collated material and made it available
for inspection to counsel and the solicitor to the inquest. Access was first granted for
inspection of this collated material in late August 2012. The process of collating further
material and making it available to the inquest team continued thereafter. In making
this material available for inspection, the government made it clear that it reserved its
position both as to the relevance of the material, and as to the making of applications
for public interest immunity (PII) in relation to it. This was done with the intention of
ensuring that the progress of this investigation was not delayed, whilst at the same
time preserving the government’s position in relation to disclosure in the event that I
determined that some or all of the material reviewed was relevant to the inquest and
should be disclosed to interested persons.
250