The Litvinenko Inquiry

The Litvinenko Inquiry
106. By rule 14, the contents of a warning letter are to be treated as subject to the obligations
of confidence set out in rule 14(1). The inquiry Chairman’s obligation of confidence
under this rule ends when the inquiry report is signed, and all other obligations of
confidence under this rule end when the inquiry report is published.
107. The fact that a possible criticism has been included in a warning letter, whether
written under rule 13(1) or 13(3), does not necessarily mean that the criticism will
be adopted in the inquiry proceedings or in any report. The procedural provision is
intended to afford the individual a fair opportunity to prepare for giving evidence or to
draw attention to reasons why the criticism should not be made. Accordingly, I do not
propose to publish the content of warning letters.
108. However, in accordance with rule 13, warning letters were sent as appropriate to
people who were covered by the provisions of rule 13.
The substantive hearings
109. On 27 January 2015, the Inquiry’s substantive hearings commenced. Opening
statements were made by counsel to the Inquiry, counsel for Marina and Anatoly
Litvinenko, counsel for the Home Secretary and counsel for AWE plc.
110. The Inquiry hearing lasted for a total of 34 days. Evidence was taken on 30 of those
days. A total of 62 witnesses gave oral evidence. A number of witnesses giving
oral evidence attended the Inquiry on more than one occasion to do so. Five of the
witnesses gave evidence from overseas by videolink. In addition, witness statements
of a further 20 witnesses were read, together with a further witness statement from a
witness who had already given oral evidence (Marina Litvinenko).
111. In addition, a large quantity of documents was adduced in evidence. Some of these
documents were referred to and discussed by witnesses, but I simply put other
documents into evidence because it was not necessary for them to be discussed with
a witness.
112. It was originally envisaged that the Inquiry’s open hearings would conclude before
Easter. However, the overall length of the Inquiry hearings was prolonged by the
actions of Mr Kovtun, who is the subject of one of the two arrest warrants issued in
respect of Mr Litvinenko’s death.
113. During the course of March 2015, the solicitor to the Inquiry received a number of
communications from a man who said he was Mr Kovtun. He said that he was willing
to take part in the Inquiry and in particular to give evidence by videolink. He also
indicated that he wished to apply for core participant status. These developments
were notified to core participants, the public and the press at the substantive hearing
on 19 March 2015.
114. On 30 March 2015, I indicated that I was minded to grant Mr Kovtun core participant
status, subject to his fulfilling a number of conditions. Mr Kovtun had to give a
confidentiality undertaking in the same manner as all other core participants. He had
to provide a detailed witness statement, including a response to nine questions put
to him in Russia by Major General of Justice Krasnov, and a tenth question which
was added in a letter dated 5 March 2015 from the Inquiry secretariat to Mr Kovtun.
Further, he had to disclose any documents and other written material which he had
said in media interviews was relevant to the issues being considered by the Inquiry. I
260