The Litvinenko Inquiry

Part 8 | Chapters 1 to 6 | Who killed Alexander Litvinenko?
which they subsequently put into effect, was to make this attempt in the Pine Bar of
the Millennium Hotel.
8.116 In summary on this point, I am satisfied that Mr Kovtun did tell D3 in the course of
their discussions in Hamburg that he was planning to poison Mr Litvinenko, and that
he telephoned C2 on the morning of 1 November in an attempt to enlist his support in
carrying out this plan.
8.117 For the reasons that I have set out above, this finding is both consistent with and strongly
corroborative of the other evidence that points to the conclusion that Mr Lugovoy and
Mr Kovtun poisoned Mr Litvinenko.
The duration of Lugovoy’s operation against Mr Litvinenko
8.118 I have referred at paragraphs 4.148 – 4.150 above to the evidence about the first
meeting in London between Mr Lugovoy and Mr Litvinenko. As I have said, it appears
that this meeting took place in October 2004. There was a divergence between the
evidence of Mr Lugovoy and Mr Litvinenko as to which of them had made the first
contact. In light of my general findings regarding Mr Lugovoy’s credibility, as well as
my finding as to his involvement in poisoning Mr Litvinenko, I am satisfied that, as
Mr Litvinenko said, it was Mr Lugovoy who first contacted him in 2004, and not the
other way around. I would add that I regard it as entirely possible that Mr Lugovoy was
already at that stage involved in a plan to target Mr Litvinenko, perhaps with a view
to killing him.
Lugovoy and Kovtun’s conduct since November 2006
8.119 I have already made it clear that I do not regard the fact that Mr Lugovoy and Mr Kovtun
have not given evidence to the Inquiry as something that amounts in itself to evidence
of their responsibility for Mr Litvinenko’s death.
8.120 However, I did hear evidence on a number of other matters relating to Mr Lugovoy
and Mr Kovtun’s conduct since November 2006 that I do regard as supportive of my
finding that they poisoned Mr Litvinenko.
8.121 I have referred above (see paragraph 4.73) to the 2008 El Pais interview in which
Mr Lugovoy said that he believed Mr Litvinenko to have been “a traitor” and also,
a little later, referred to Oleg Gordievsky (whom he knew to have been a friend of
Mr Litvinenko) saying that, “if someone has caused the Russian state serious
damage, they should be exterminated”. The fact that Mr Lugovoy said these things
does not, of course, mean that he killed Mr Litvinenko. But the fact that he held
these views is certainly consistent with him having done so. I regard the fact that
Mr Lugovoy expressed these views as supportive of my overall finding that he did
poison Mr Litvinenko.
8.122 Of rather more significance is an incident described to me in evidence by Michael
Cotlick, who was Boris Berezovsky’s personal assistant from 2005 until Mr Berezovsky’s
death in 2013.
8.123 Mr Cotlick told me about an incident that took place in Mr Berezovsky’s London
offices in July 2010. 9 Mr Cotlick described how he had been called to Mr Berezovsky’s
9
Cotlick 25/76-81
199