The Litvinenko Inquiry

The polygraph test
Part 8 | Chapters 1 to 6 | Who killed Alexander Litvinenko?
8.132 In 2012, Mr Lugovoy underwent a polygraph or so-called ‘lie detector’ test in Moscow.
The test was administered by a British man and his son – Bruce and Tristam Burgess
– who are both qualified polygraph examiners. Mr Lugovoy was asked a series of
questions about his alleged involvement in Mr Litvinenko’s death, and he denied any
such involvement. At the end of the test, Bruce Burgess, who took the lead role in
conducting the test, announced the result to Mr Lugovoy in the following words, 13
“I can tell you the result was conclusive, you were telling the truth, no deception
indicated.”
8.133 I received exhaustive evidence about this polygraph test. The test itself was filmed,
and I adduced both the recording 14 and a transcript in evidence. 15 I also had available
to me the various charts produced by the polygraph equipment during the test. 16 I
commissioned an expert in polygraphy, Professor Ray Bull, to prepare a report about
this test, and adduced that report in evidence. 17 I also heard oral evidence from Bruce
Burgess, 18 from Tristam Burgess, 19 and from Professor Bull. 20 All those materials are
available on the Inquiry website.
8.134 I will make it clear at once that I regard the polygraph test conducted on Mr Lugovoy
as having been seriously flawed. In consequence, I do not feel able to place any
weight at all on the outcome of the test. My reasons are as follows.
8.135 By the end of his oral evidence I was left with general concerns about the levels
of professionalism and objectivity demonstrated by Bruce Burgess (to whom I shall
refer hereafter simply as ‘Mr Burgess’), and therefore his suitability to conduct what
was, after all, a scientific examination relating to an allegation of murder. Mr Burgess
accepted that he has a conviction for perverting the course of justice. More particularly,
he stated during the course of his evidence that he did not think it would be improper
to conduct a polygraph test on a person who had been charged with a criminal offence
and was awaiting trial, on the basis that by that point the criminal investigation would
have been concluded. He also said that in those circumstances he would try to obtain
an admission if the individual ‘failed’ the test. Mr Burgess’ view was that none of this
risked interfering with the criminal process. In the present case, Mr Burgess accepted
that he flew to Moscow having been told that the subject of the proposed polygraph
test was involved in a murder case, but without asking who the subject was or what
precise stage the murder investigation had reached. He accepted that he should have
made further enquiries.
8.136 As I have said, these matters and others similar to them left me with concerns about
Mr Burgess’ professionalism and judgement. These concerns would not have justified
me in rejecting the test without more, but they did lead me to examine with care the
way in which the test was conducted.
13
INQ017779 (page 30)
14
INQ015781 part 1, INQ015781 part 2; INQ015777 part 1, INQ015777 part 2; INQ015778; INQ015779;
INQ015780 [videos]
15
INQ017779
16
INQ017728; INQ020308
17
INQ019031; INQ019054
18
Bruce Burgess 21/1-171
19
Tristam Burgess 21/172-213
20
Bull 21/213-256
203