The Litvinenko Inquiry

The Litvinenko Inquiry
anything to him about blackmail, nor was he aware of any other evidence to support
the allegation against Mr Litvinenko. In his mind, the matter amounted to no more
than press speculation. 32
5.49 Mr Voronkov was unaware of any dispute between Mr Berezovsky and Mr Litvinenko,
although he said that he would not have expected Mr Berezovsky to discuss such
matters with him. What he was able to say was that he did not notice any change in
the way that the two men behaved towards one another during this period. 33
5.50 In summary, I heard evidence on this issue from a wide range of those who were close
to Mr Litvinenko and Mr Berezovsky during the second half of 2006. It seems clear
that the level of the regular payments to Mr Litvinenko was reduced, and there is good
evidence that he was unhappy about this. There is also good evidence that there was
some sort of row between the two men during this period, but much less evidence that
the row was about the reduction in payments. Some of those who thought there had
been a row also thought there had been a reconciliation. There was strong evidence
that whatever row may have taken place, it had not affected the underlying friendship
between Mr Litvinenko and Mr Berezovsky. None of the witnesses offered any support
to the allegation that Mr Litvinenko either had been blackmailing Mr Berezovsky, or
had been planning to do so.
5.51 I would add that both Mr Litvinenko and Mr Berezovsky left substantial quantities
of written evidence in the form of various witness statements and transcripts of
interviews. None of this material supports the suggestion that there had been a serious
rift between the two men in the months before Mr Litvinenko’s death, or indeed at
any time. For example, in a statement given to the Metropolitan Police Service after
Mr Litvinenko’s death, Mr Berezovsky stated that the two men had “continue[d] to
have good relations” after Mr Litvinenko had stopped working for him. 34 And there is
nothing in the transcripts of Mr Litvinenko’s interviews with Detective Inspector Hyatt
to suggest that there had been a serious rift between him and Mr Berezovsky.
5.52 This brings me to the evidence of Julia Svetlichnaya.
5.53 The essential facts about Dr Svetlichnaya’s contact with Mr Litvinenko are, I think,
uncontroversial. The evidence that Dr Svetlichnaya gave in this regard may be
summarised as follows:
a. In 2006, Dr Svetlichnaya was a research student at the Centre for the Study of
Democracy at Westminster University
b. One of the subjects of Dr Svetlichnaya’s research was the issue of Chechen
identity. She wished in that connection to interview Akhmed Zakayev
c. In order to arrange such an interview, Dr Svetlichnaya contacted Mr Berezovsky,
whose phone number she had been given by a journalist. Mr Berezovsky said
that he could not introduce her to Mr Zakayev, but he gave her contact details for
Mr Litvinenko – who, he said, might introduce her to Mr Zakayev. Dr Svetlichnaya
formed the impression that the intention was that Mr Litvinenko would vet her in
order for a decision to be taken as to whether she should be allowed to interview
Mr Zakayev
32
Cotlick 25/41-47
33
Voronkov 16/193-194
34
INQ002895 (page 6)
98