The Litvinenko Inquiry

The Litvinenko Inquiry
Anonymity – restriction orders
73. In the course of the inquest proceedings, applications had been made for anonymity
orders in respect of a number of proposed witnesses whose evidence was to be
adduced although not necessarily orally.
74. On 29 January 2013, I gave directions about the making of any anonymity applications.
75. On 27 February 2013, the MPS applied for anonymity in respect of three witnesses
known as D1, D2 and C1.
76. On 14 March 2013, I conducted a hearing at which these applications were considered.
For reasons which included the need by the representatives of media organisations
to receive more information before they could usefully make submissions on the
applications, the applications were adjourned.
77. On 11 June 2013, I conducted a further hearing to consider these anonymity
applications, and a further anonymity application made by AWE plc in respect of a
witness known as A3.
78. On 11 July 2013, I granted the application in relation to A3, but refused the applications
in relation to D1, D2 and C1. Because the applications were based in part on material
which could not be made public, the written ruling had a closed addendum dealing
with that material.
79. On 4 October 2013, I conducted a further hearing to consider anonymity applications
in relation to witnesses known as C2, C3, D3, D6 and D7, together with a residual
issue in relation to D1, D2 and C1 as to whether there should be disclosure of the
contents of the closed addendum in relation to them.
80. On 26 November 2013, I granted the application in relation to D3. Because the
witnesses C2, C3, D6 and D7 formed part of a group that also included D3, and
identification of any member of that group other than D3 would be likely to lead to
the identification of D3, I also granted the application in relation to them although the
individual merits of the applications in relation to them would not have warranted the
grant of an anonymity order.
81. On the same day, I also ruled that none of the contents of the closed addendum in
relation to D1, D2 and C1 should be made public at that time.
82. On 5 September 2014, at the first directions hearing following the establishment of
the Inquiry, all core participants and the media agreed that for the purposes of the
Inquiry I should adopt the anonymity orders I had already made during the inquest
proceedings. Accordingly, on 9 October 2014 a restriction order was made repeating
the anonymity orders which had been made during the inquest.
83. On 14 November 2014, a further restriction order was made granting anonymity in
relation to a witness known as A1.
84. On 27 November 2014, a further restriction order was made granting anonymity in
relation to a witness known as D9.
85. Further applications were made in respect of these witnesses that, if they gave oral
evidence to the Inquiry, they should be screened from the public and the press. In
relation to all of the witnesses who were granted anonymity, I made a further order
256