The Litvinenko Inquiry
JIEp7Zyr
JIEp7Zyr
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Litvinenko</strong> <strong>Inquiry</strong><br />
9.170 It was a theme of the evidence of both these men that the trip to Moscow had not run<br />
smoothly. <strong>The</strong>y described a large number of incidents that occurred during their stay<br />
in Moscow that, to them at least, seemed to demonstrate obstructiveness on the part<br />
of their Russian colleagues. For example, the British investigators were told that only<br />
one British investigator (rather than two) could sit in on interviews, that lists of questions<br />
had to be provided in advance, and that they could not make their own separate<br />
recordings of interviews. <strong>The</strong>re was even an occasion on which Russian officials who<br />
were driving to an interview location in the knowledge that British investigators were<br />
following in a car behind drove fast and erratically in an apparent attempt to lose the<br />
British team.<br />
9.171 Further, particular difficulties were experienced in relation to the interviews of the two<br />
key witnesses, Mr Kovtun and Mr Lugovoy. Interviews were cancelled at short notice<br />
and then hastily rearranged, and when they did take place were rushed with limited<br />
opportunity for the single British investigator present to ask questions. <strong>The</strong> British<br />
team were told that the two men were being treated for radiation sickness, but when<br />
they were interviewed they did not appear to be ill. Finally, when the interview tapes<br />
that had been handed to the British investigators in Moscow were examined back<br />
in London, it was discovered that there was no tape of Mr Lugovoy’s interview. <strong>The</strong><br />
Russian authorities had not provided any advance warning that there would be no<br />
tape of this interview. 72<br />
9.172 In his closing statement, Mr Horwell QC, who appeared on behalf of the Metropolitan<br />
Police Service, made the following submissions about these events: 73<br />
“Why be obstructive if there was nothing to hide?”<br />
“<strong>The</strong> lack of full cooperation in Moscow with the interviews of Lugovoy and Kovtun:<br />
stupid, petty obstructions placed in the way of the police officers who went to<br />
interview them. <strong>The</strong> failure of the Russians to supply the tape of Lugovoy’s interview<br />
perhaps says it all. <strong>The</strong> motivation obvious. <strong>The</strong> Russians wanted control of those<br />
interviews, a control which was resurrected but a few days ago. Hardly a reaction<br />
indicative of an interest in truth and justice.”<br />
9.173 My observations on these events, and the inferences that may be drawn from them,<br />
are as follows.<br />
9.174 First, it is quite apparent that the British investigators did not receive the level of<br />
cooperation in Moscow that they had hoped for, and that in consequence the enquiries<br />
that they conducted during their stay there were not as full as they might otherwise<br />
have been. It was clear to me that this was a matter that still rankles with those<br />
involved, even now, several years after the event.<br />
9.175 Second, there is no direct evidence as to the explanation for the conduct of the Russian<br />
officials. I had hoped that one of the Russian investigators might have given evidence<br />
to the <strong>Inquiry</strong>, in which case an explanation could have been sought, but this has not<br />
transpired. I am well aware, however, that the procedures governing international<br />
cooperation between police forces are complex and quite capable of giving rise to<br />
misunderstandings. <strong>The</strong>re are a number of possible explanations – good, bad and<br />
indifferent – for what the British police saw as the obstructiveness of the Russian<br />
officials. In the absence of any explanation from the Russian side, I do not think it<br />
72<br />
Mascall 29/67-69<br />
73<br />
Horwell 33/69-70<br />
236