The Litvinenko Inquiry

d. The use of such devices would be permitted (on the terms set out in the protocol
on the use of live text-based communications in the hearing rooms) in the media
annex
e. A transcript of proceedings would be posted on the Inquiry website at the end of
each day
100. The hearing was conducted under enhanced measures when evidence was taken
from a small number of witnesses; Alex Goldfarb, Dean Attew and Akhmed Zakayev.
Otherwise, the evidence was taken under default measures.
101. In addition, the enhanced measures were adopted in modified form in relation to each
witness giving oral evidence who had the benefit of an anonymity order (this applied to
A1, C2 and D6). Those who were not permitted to see the witness’ physical appearance
were excluded from the main hearing room, and the relay of the proceedings from the
main hearing room to the media annex was limited to audio only.
Special advocate
102. On 27 February 2013, in the course of the PII application in the inquest proceedings,
I had ruled that it was neither necessary nor appropriate to appoint special counsel
or PII advocates to represent the interests of interested persons in the disclosure
proceedings.
103. On 5 September 2014, an application was made on behalf of Marina and Anatoly
Litvinenko for the appointment of a special advocate.
104. On 9 October 2014, I refused the application for reasons given in a written ruling on
that date.
Warning letters
105. Rule 13 of the Inquiry Rules 2006 provides:
Appendix 1 | The history of the Inquiry and procedures adopted
“(1) The chairman may send a warning letter to any person –
a. he considers may be, or who has been, subject to criticism in the inquiry
proceedings; or
b. about whom criticism may be inferred from evidence that has been given
during the inquiry proceedings; or
c. who may be subject to criticism in the report, or any interim report.
(2) The recipient of a warning letter may disclose it to his recognised legal
representative.
(3) The inquiry panel must not include any explicit or significant criticism of a person
in the report, or in any interim report, unless –
(a) the chairman has sent that person a warning letter; and
(b) the person has been given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the
warning letter.”
259