The Litvinenko Inquiry

Appendix 1 | The history of the Inquiry and procedures adopted
31. For the hearing on 13 December 2012, counsel to the inquest prepared an open and
a closed version of a note concerning the material which had been made available
by the government for inspection. The notes expressed a provisional view about that
material, as the process of making the material available and inspecting the material
was continuing. Counsel to the inquest noted that a significant proportion of the
material was of a sensitive nature. The government had made it clear that it was
very likely that it would object to the disclosure of the material to interested persons
on grounds of PII. However, it was possible to state high level conclusions as to the
effect of the government material. These related solely to the effect of the government
material taken alone.
32. Counsel to the inquest expressed the view that the government material did establish
a prima facie case as to the culpability of the Russian State in Mr Litvinenko’s death.
However, it did not establish a prima facie case as to the culpability of the British State
in itself carrying out (by its servants or agents) the poisoning of Mr Litvinenko, or in
failing to take reasonable steps to protect him from a real and immediate risk to his
life. It did not establish a prima facie case as to the involvement of Mr Berezovsky,
Spanish mafia and/or other criminal organisations, Mario Scaramella, or Chechen
groups, in Mr Litvinenko’s death. It did not establish a prima facie case as to the
making by Alexander Talik of threats to kill Mr Litvinenko, or as to any more general
involvement on his part in Mr Litvinenko’s death. Counsel to the inquest said that a
conclusion to the effect that the government material did not establish a prima facie
case in respect of any particular issue was not to be interpreted as meaning that there
was no evidence at all on that issue contained in the government material.
33. On 29 January 2013, I gave directions that any PII certificate was to be served by
15 February 2013, and for a consequent timetable for the determination of any PII
issues.
34. On 7 February 2013, the then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth
Affairs (the Rt Hon William Hague MP) made a certificate claiming PII in respect of a
sample of documents selected from the material made available by the government
for inspection.
35. On 26 February 2013, I conducted a public hearing to consider the PII application, at
which all interested persons had the opportunity to make submissions, as well as a
number of media organisations who were legally represented. The transcript of this
hearing is available on the Inquiry website. Following legal submissions made at that
hearing, on 27 February 2013 I ruled that:
a. I had jurisdiction to hold a private hearing at which to consider the merits of the
PII claim
b. Rather than hold a private hearing in which to address the adequacy of the
PII certificate, and specifically whether the claim could and should be further
particularised without defeating the claim under consideration, I would continue
with the private hearing to consider the merits of the PII claim. If in the course
of that hearing it became clear that the claim could be further particularised in
a manner that would not jeopardise the claim, and that I would be assisted by
further submissions from the interested persons, then I would reconvene the
public hearing
251