The Litvinenko Inquiry

The Litvinenko Inquiry
to conduct what appeared to have been some form of reconnaissance exercise for
a possible attempt to assassinate Mr Berezovsky, perhaps by poisoning him. I am
aware that, in more recent years, Mr Terluk has given a very different version of these
events, which was the subject of contested defamation proceedings in the High Court
in London. 20 I should make it clear that, whilst I have read and taken into account
the findings of Mr Justice Eady in the defamation proceedings, I have not sought to
investigate the true facts of this episode, which are highly contentious and of only
peripheral importance to my Terms of Reference.
4.26 The second incident that I have in mind took place in October 2004, when the houses
of both Mr Litvinenko and Mr Zakayev were firebombed, apparently by two Chechen
men who were in dispute with Mr Berezovsky. The evidence that I have about this
episode, which is limited, suggests that the dispute had arisen over a payment that
one of the Chechen men claimed he was owed for a trip to Paris, which he said he
had made at Mr Berezovsky’s request, in connection with a deal relating to the plans
for a ‘nuclear suitcase bomb’. Prior to the firebombing of his house, Mr Litvinenko had
been attempting to mediate on Mr Berezovsky’s behalf. 21
4.27 As with the Terluk episode, I am not in a position to make any findings as to the rights
and wrongs of this episode, which took place more than ten years ago. I refer to the
two incidents because they do perhaps give a flavour of the life that Mr Litvinenko was
living, and the risks that he was running, as a member of Mr Berezovsky’s entourage
during this period.
Criticism of President Putin and his regime
4.28 It is clear on the evidence that the profile that Mr Litvinenko established during the
time that he lived in London was considerably greater than simply as a member
of Mr Berezovsky’s circle. He had a reputation of his own as a campaigner and
commentator, and an outspoken one at that. I have already referred to Professor
Service’s characterisation of Mr Litvinenko as the “most prominent and ebullient” of
the critics of President Putin around Mr Berezovsky. Professor Service added that
“Litvinenko’s denunciations were fierce”. 22
4.29 I heard from a number of witnesses, including Marina Litvinenko, Mr Goldfarb
and Mr Bukovsky, about the way in which Mr Litvinenko’s political understanding
and convictions developed following his arrival in London. It was, of course, such
convictions that underpinned his campaigning activities. Mr Bukovsky, in particular,
gave compelling evidence regarding the new understanding of Russian history in
general and the history of the KGB/FSB in particular that Mr Litvinenko developed
after he arrived in this country. 23
4.30 Perhaps the most significant pieces of Mr Litvinenko’s campaigning work were the
two books that he co-authored during his early years in London. The first, published in
Russian in 2001, was subsequently published in English as Blowing Up Russia. The
second, which Mr Litvinenko wrote in 2001 and 2002, was never published in English,
but its Russian title translates as The Gang from the Lubyanka.
20
Berezovsky v RTR & Terluk [2010] EWHC 476 (QB); Terluk v Berezovsky [2011] EWCA Civ 1534
21
Knuckey 7/38-44; see also Mr Knuckey’s report and timeline relating to this incident: INQ019304; INQ019301
22
INQ019146 (page 25 paragraph 77)
23
Bukovsky 26/86-90; 26/109-110
56