The Litvinenko Inquiry

The Litvinenko Inquiry
50. On 11 February 2014, the Divisional Court allowed Marina Litvinenko’s application for
judicial review and quashed the Home Secretary’s decision. Accordingly, the Home
Secretary was required to make a further decision on whether to establish an inquiry.
51. On 22 July 2014, the Home Secretary announced the government’s decision to
establish an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 to investigate Mr Litvinenko’s death.
52. On 31 July 2014, the Inquiry was formally set up. On that date, I held a short hearing at
which the inquest was suspended, in accordance with the provisions of the Coroners
and Justice Act 2009, and formally opened the Inquiry. The Terms of Reference can
be found in Appendix 2.
53. On 5 September 2014, I published the List of Issues which the Inquiry would consider.
This list can be found at Appendix 3.
The opening of the Inquiry and procedural
hearings
54. At a short hearing on 31 July 2014, the formal setting up date of the Inquiry, I made a
statement setting out the history of the events which had led up to the establishment of
the Inquiry. I also set out procedural matters which would be dealt with in forthcoming
directions hearings.
55. Open directions hearings were held on 5 September 2014, 16 October 2014,
14 November 2014, 17 December 2014 and 20 January 2015.
56. In addition, preparation for the closed substantive hearings required a number of
closed directions hearings to be held.
Core participants
57. On 31 July 2014, I invited applications for core participant status under rule 5 of the
Inquiry Rules 2006.
58. On 5 September 2014, I announced that applications had been received from Marina
and Anatoly Litvinenko, the MPS, the Home Secretary (on her own behalf and as a
representative of the government), The Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE plc)
and Mr Scaramella.
59. Mr Scaramella’s application was refused, for which reasons were given in a written
ruling dated 9 October 2014.
60. I granted the other applications.
61. The solicitors for the ICRF, which had been an interested person in the inquest, wrote
to me to indicate that it would be making no application for core participant status in
the Inquiry.
62. During March 2015, after the substantive hearings had already been under way for a
substantial period of time, Mr Kovtun expressed a wish to take part in the Inquiry by
giving oral evidence and by becoming a core participant. I summarise these events
below.
254