The Litvinenko Inquiry

Funding applications
Appendix 1 | The history of the Inquiry and procedures adopted
63. On 31 July 2014, I also invited applications for funding under the Inquiries Act 2005.
Under section 40 of the Inquiries Act 2005, such funding may be made available to
allow certain persons having a connection to the Inquiry to receive legal representation
at public expense.
64. On 5 September 2014, I announced that applications for funding had been received
from Marina Litvinenko and Anatoly Litvinenko, and from Mr Scaramella.
65. I granted the application by Marina Litvinenko and Anatoly Litvinenko in principle, with
the precise terms of the award to be finalised following further submissions.
66. I refused Mr Scaramella’s application as it did not meet the criteria set out in section
40(3) of the Inquiries Act 2005.
67. Later, during the course of the substantive hearings, a further application for funding
was received from Mr Scaramella, who travelled from Italy to London on two occasions
to give evidence to the Inquiry. I allowed this later application.
68. I also received and allowed applications from a number of other witnesses for expenses
and legal costs.
Closed evidence – restriction notices
69. On 31 July 2014, I explained that the most important feature of the Inquiry, and the
reason why I asked that it be established, was that it would permit me to consider
closed evidence and hold closed hearings, from which the public, most of the core
participants and the press would be excluded. It would not have been possible to hold
such hearings at all during an inquest. I considered the reason why it was of great
importance to be able to hold at least some closed hearings was that the government
held some documents that were relevant to Mr Litvinenko’s death, but which were
of such sensitivity that they could not be used in open court. Had the proceedings
remained as an inquest, those documents would have had to be excluded from my
enquiries, in accordance with my PII rulings and the decision of the Divisional Court.
70. Because of the sensitivity of the government evidence, it was inevitable that at least
some of my final report would also have to remain secret. But I have always made it
clear that I intend to make public my final conclusion on the issue of Russian State
responsibility, together with as much as possible of my reasoning in that regard.
71. I announced that, on 7 July 2014, the Home Secretary had made a restriction notice
under section 19 of the Inquiries Act 2005, the effect of which was to require that
specified sensitive material was considered only in closed session, and that the Home
Secretary may make further restriction notices.
72. A second restriction notice was made by the Home Secretary on 4 November 2014.
The first and second restriction notices were amended on 21 January 2015. Further
restriction notices were made by the government on 9 March 2015 and 29 June 2015.
255