The Litvinenko Inquiry

The Litvinenko Inquiry
9.88 Second, Mr Potemkin’s account is on any view far fetched. Again, that does not of
course mean that he is lying. But there are many further questions to which I would
have needed an answer before being sufficiently confident to conclude that the
extraordinary story that he has told is true. To give only a few examples, if the container
was to be brought to Innsbruck by Sultan and left in a locker at the railway station, why
did Mr Potemkin need to be involved at all? Why couldn’t Sultan have left the container
at the station? On a further point, how confident was Mr Potemkin that the package
contained polonium 210? How did his earlier special forces experience assist him in
identifying the contents of this package? Did the markings on the package specifically
state that it contained polonium 210, and if not, how did Mr Potemkin know that it did not
contain (for example) some other radioactive material? Finally, why did Mr Potemkin’s
(presumably secret) orders state that he was to receive this package in connection
with: “carrying out further activities related to investigation, possible neutralization and
return to RF of certain members of Chechen ethnic criminal groups” ? On the account
that he has given, this would appear to be simply inaccurate.
9.89 Third and in any event, I observe that even if Mr Potemkin’s account was to be accepted
in its entirety, it would be of only limited assistance to this Inquiry. Put at its highest,
the account amounts to evidence that in September 2006 the FSB was clandestinely
moving a package of polonium 210 around Europe as far as Innsbruck. There is
no evidence to connect the container that Mr Potemkin claims to have deposited
in a locker at Innsbruck station with London, Mr Litvinenko – or, for example, with
Mr Lugovoy or Mr Kovtun.
Professor Dombey’s analysis
9.90 When he gave his oral evidence to the Inquiry, Professor Dombey appeared to
advance an argument that was both simple and, if true, of great significance to this
case.
9.91 In summary, this argument was (a) that the polonium 210 that was used to kill
Mr Litvinenko must have been made in Russia, since the Mayak/Avangard facilities
were the only place in the world in which the quantity of polonium used on 1 November
2006 could have been made; and (b) that since the facilities at Mayak and Avangard
were controlled by the Russian State, any diversion of the polonium 210 produced
there must have been authorised by state officials. Unsurprisingly, some emphasis
was placed on this evidence by Mr Emmerson in his closing statement.
9.92 There were a number of steps to Professor Dombey’s reasoning, which I will address
in turn. After the conclusion of the Inquiry hearings, A1 produced a further statement
in which she gave her own opinion on several of these points, and Professor Dombey
responded by way of a further statement. 30 I am grateful both to A1 and to Professor
Dombey for their assistance in this regard; the further written material that they have
provided has been of considerable assistance in resolving this issue.
The amount of polonium 210 that was used
9.93 Professor Dombey estimated that at least 50 micrograms of polonium 210 was put
into the teapot at the Millennium Hotel on the afternoon of 1 November 2006. His
reasoning was that the 4.4GBq that Mr Litvinenko was considered to have ingested
equated to 26.5 micrograms, and the higher figure of 50 micrograms was chosen
30
INQ022423; INQ022433
222