The Litvinenko Inquiry

The Litvinenko Inquiry
The inquest proceedings
10. The Coroner for the district within which the body of a deceased person is lying is
required by statute to hold an inquest when there is reasonable cause to suspect that
the deceased had died a violent or unnatural death. At the time of Mr Litvinenko’s
death, the Coroners Act 1988 was in force. This has since been replaced by the
Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Some of the terminology has changed, but the
fundamental principles remain the same.
11. A Coroner’s inquest is a process for investigating the factual circumstances of a death.
It is a fact finding inquiry to establish:
a. Who the deceased was
b. When and where the death occurred
c. How the deceased came by his or her death
d. The particulars required by the Registration Acts to be registered concerning the
death
12. The proceedings and evidence at a Coroner’s inquest are aimed solely at ascertaining
the answers to these questions. Expressions of opinion on any other matter – for
example, determining criminal or civil liability – are not allowed. However, the Coroner
does have the power to investigate not just the main cause of death, but also “any
acts or omissions which directly led to the cause of death”.
13. Accordingly, on 30 November 2006, the then Coroner for Inner North London (Dr
Andrew Reid) formally opened an inquest into Mr Litvinenko’s death, and then
immediately adjourned it pending the continuation of the police investigation which
was already underway. The inquest remained adjourned for nearly five years whilst
there was thought to be a prospect that criminal proceedings might be brought.
14. On 13 October 2011, the Coroner conducted a pre-inquest hearing to consider
whether the inquest should remain adjourned. He noted the position in relation to
the criminal investigation, namely that the MPS had made submissions to the CPS,
and that the CPS had concluded its consideration of the case. The extradition of one
person from Russia had been requested and declined. The CPS had indicated that,
although it would wish to proceed with a prosecution, this was not currently possible
and there was no impediment to the inquest taking place. The Coroner was satisfied
that there was no realistic prospect of any named individual returning to the United
Kingdom (UK) either voluntarily or under legal compulsion pursuant to an order for
extradition. The Coroner had received submissions from interested persons and
potentially interested persons asking him to resume the inquest, and in the absence
of objection from the CPS or MPS, he decided that the inquest should be resumed.
15. The Coroner announced that he had appointed counsel and solicitors to the Inquest.
He stated his intention that the inquest team would provide continuity of representation
should a judge subsequently be appointed to act as Deputy Assistant Coroner to
conduct the inquest.
16. The Coroner also addressed the issue of disclosure. He reached a clear conclusion that
the scope of the disclosure exercise should extend to all material as to Mr Litvinenko’s
personal and professional history that might affect the evaluation of the circumstances
248