The Litvinenko Inquiry

Appendix 1 | The history of the Inquiry and procedures adopted
that the inquest evidence would be adduced in the Inquiry in accordance with the
Inquiry’s Terms of Reference.
129. Notwithstanding their awareness of the status of the inquest and Inquiry proceedings,
the Russian authorities did not expressly extend permission for that evidence to be
used in the Inquiry. The part of the Home Office that deals with matters under this Act
wrote to its Russian counterparts both before and after the commencement of the
Inquiry’s substantive hearings, but no response was forthcoming then, or at any time
before the originally scheduled end of the Inquiry’s substantive open hearings.
130. On 17 July 2015, the Inquiry was notified by the Home Office of a response which it
had received on 15 July 2015 from the Russian authorities, declining permission for
the evidence to be used in the Inquiry proceedings.
131. On 24 July 2015, I heard submissions on the consequences of this response. I
concluded that section 9 of the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 precluded
the use of such material for any other purpose than that specified in the request,
namely the original criminal investigation and any subsequent prosecution, without
the consent of the Russian authorities. Accordingly, those records of interview could
not be used by the Inquiry.
132. I invited further submissions on whether, on the proper construction of the relevant
statutory provisions, I could admit evidence as to the content of the interviews from
the MPS officers who were present at the interviews, other evidence obtained by
the MPS during their trip to Moscow, evidence as to the level of cooperation of the
Russian authorities in arranging the interviews, and evidence as to attempts made by
a Russian official to pressure an interpreter to give an inaccurate translation of what
was said in the course of the interviews.
133. On 25 September 2015, following consideration of further submissions, I gave a
written ruling further concluding that it would not be permissible for me either to admit
in evidence notes about the content of the interviews, or to hear evidence from the
officers as to their content. But the statutory provisions did not preclude the admission
of evidence as to the circumstances in which the interviews were carried out, provided
that such evidence did not reveal the content of the interviews, either directly or by
implication; nor did they preclude evidence as to the level of cooperation of the Russian
authorities and as to their attempts to produce transcripts that did not reflect the true
content of the interviews, or any notes made by the MPS officers as to such matters.
263