The Litvinenko Inquiry

The Litvinenko Inquiry
c. It was neither necessary nor appropriate to appoint special counsel or PII advocates
to represent the interests of interested persons in the disclosure proceedings
36. There was then a private hearing of the application, from which the public and most
of the interested persons were excluded, at which I considered the merits of the PII
claim in more detail.
37. On 17 May 2013, I gave my ruling on the PII application, which is available on the
Inquiry website. I rejected part of the PII claim, and concluded that some of the
information that was covered by the PII claim could and should be disclosed.
38. First, I concluded that a number of lines of enquiry could be identified as lines of
enquiry to which the documents that were the subject of the PII claim related. Those
lines of enquiry included amongst others:
a. The possible involvement of Russian State agencies in the death of Mr Litvinenko
b. The properties and uses of polonium 210
c. UK authorities’ knowledge and/or assessment of threats or risks to Mr Litvinenko’s
life in 2000-2006
d. Decisions or actions taken to manage any identified risk
Some other lines of enquiry which I concluded could be similarly identified were
redacted in anticipation of a challenge to my ruling.
39. Second, a description could be given of the types of sensitivity which underpinned the
PII claim, and this was set out in my ruling.
40. Third, my ruling was able to state:
a. That I had considered the PII claim brought in relation to the material relevant to
the issue of the possible involvement of Russian State agencies in Mr Litvinenko’s
death and had upheld the claim
b. That I had considered the PII claim brought in relation to the material relevant to
the preventability issue and had upheld the claim
c. That I had considered the PII claim brought in relation to the material relevant
to an identified issue (which was redacted) and had concluded that some gists
could and should be given in respect of those issues
d. The terms of the gists which should be given (which were redacted)
e. That I had upheld the PII claim in respect of further material relating to other
issues
41. On 31 May 2013, the Foreign Secretary commenced an application for judicial review
of the parts of my decision represented by the redacted parts of that ruling. In October
2013, a Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court (constituted
by Lord Justice Goldring, Lord Justice Treacy and Mr Justice Mitting) conducted
substantive hearings of this application in public and private hearings.
252