The Litvinenko Inquiry
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Litvinenko Inquiry Report into the death of Alexander Litvinenko Chairman: Sir Robert Owen January 2016 The Litvinenko Inquiry Report into the death of Alexander Litvinenko Chairman: Sir Robert Owen Presented to Parliament pursuant to Section 26 of the Inquiries Act 2005 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 21 January 2016 HC 695 © Crown copyright 2016 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected]. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at www.litvinenkoinquiry.org Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at [email protected] Print ISBN 9781474127332 Web ISBN 9781474127349 ID 11011605 51145 01/16 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum Printed in the UK by the Williams Lea Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office | Contents Contents Introductory Part 1 Preface 7 Part 2 Introduction 9 Open narrative evidence Part 3 Alexander Litvinenko – his life in Russia and the 13 United Kingdom, his illness and death Chapter 1 In Russia 13 Chapter 2 Leaving Russia 26 Chapter 3 In the United Kingdom 29 Chapter 4 Illness and death 33 Chapter 5 Scientific examination of Alexander Litvinenko’s body 45 Part 4 Why would anyone wish to kill Alexander Litvinenko? 51 Chapter 1 Introduction 51 Chapter 2 Enemy of the Russian State? 52 Chapter 3 Work for UK intelligence agencies 63 Chapter 4 Work for the Mitrokhin Commission in Italy 68 Chapter 5 Work for the Spanish security services 72 Chapter 6 Private security work 74 Part 5 Alexander Litvinenko’s final months 85 Chapter 1 Introduction 85 Chapter 2 The 2006 Russian laws 86 Chapter 3 Continued opposition to President Putin 92 3 The Litvinenko Inquiry Chapter 4 Did Alexander Litvinenko fall out with and/or attempt 94 to blackmail Boris Berezovsky? Chapter 5 The Ivanov report 100 Chapter 6 The murder of Anna Politkovskaya 104 Chapter 7 British citizenship 106 Chapter 8 Alexander Litvinenko’s state of mind in October 2006 108 Part 6 The polonium trail – events in October and 109 November 2006 Chapter 1 Introduction 109 Chapter 2 Introduction to the scientific evidence 110 Chapter 3 Dmitri Kovtun 113 Chapter 4 Visa applications 117 Chapter 5 Events in London 16-18 October 121 Chapter 6 Events in London 25-28 October 141 Chapter 7 Events in Hamburg 28 October – 1 November 148 Chapter 8 Events in London 31 October – 3 November 155 Closed evidence Part 7 The closed evidence 181 Findings as to responsibility for death Part 8 Who killed Alexander Litvinenko? 183 Chapter 1 Introduction 183 Chapter 2 Medical cause of death 184 Chapter 3 Where did Alexander Litvinenko ingest polonium 210 186 on 1 November 2006? Chapter 4 Was there an earlier ingestion of polonium 210? 187 4 | Contents Chapter 5 Did Alexander Litvinenko poison himself? 189 Chapter 6 Who administered the poison? 192 Part 9 Who directed the killing? 209 Chapter 1 Introduction 209 Chapter 2 Boris Berezovsky 210 Chapter 3 UK intelligence agencies 211 Chapter 4 Organised crime 212 Chapter 5 Mario Scaramella, Chechen groups, Alexander Talik 213 Chapter 6 Russian State responsibility – introduction 214 Chapter 7 Russian State responsibility – the source of the 216 polonium 210 Chapter 8 Russian State responsibility – motive and evidence of 227 similar deaths and killings Chapter 9 Russian State responsibility – links between Andrey 234 Lugovoy and Dmitri Kovtun and the Russian State Chapter 10 Russian State responsibility – events since Alexander 235 Litvinenko’s death Chapter 11 Conclusions regarding Russian State responsibility 239 Chapter 12 Russian State responsibility – involvement of Nikolai 241 Patrushev and President Vladimir Putin Conclusions Part 10 Summary of conclusions 245 5 The Litvinenko Inquiry Appendices Appendix 1 The history of the Inquiry and procedures adopted 247 Appendix 2 Terms of Reference 265 Appendix 3 List of Issues 267 Appendix 4 Chronology 271 Appendix 5 Dramatis personae 283 Appendix 6 Abbreviations 295 Appendix 7 Restriction Notices and Orders 297 Appendix 8 Key documents 315 Appendix 9 List of witnesses 319 Appendix 10 List of Inquiry staff and counsel 323 Appendix 11 List of core participants and legal representatives 325 Appendix 12 Closed appendices 327 6 Part 1: Preface 1.1 On 22 July 2014 the Secretary of State for Home Affairs, the Rt Hon Theresa May MP, announced, in a written statement laid before the House of Commons, that an Inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 was to be held into the death of Alexander Litvinenko. I was appointed to chair the Inquiry. 1.2 The Terms of Reference for the Inquiry, upon which I was consulted prior to my appointment, are to be found at Appendix 3 to this Report. I was invited by the Secretary of State to complete the Inquiry by December 2015. I opened the Inquiry on 31 July 2014. The oral hearings were completed on 31 July 2015, and my Report was duly delivered to the Secretary of State in January 2016. 1.3 The Inquiry has been completed substantially within the budget prepared by the secretariat, and adopted by the Secretary of State in setting a budget cap. 1.4 I am indebted to Counsel to the Inquiry, Robin Tam QC, Hugh Davies QC and Andrew O’Connor QC, and to the Solicitor to the Inquiry, Martin Smith, and his assistant, Abigail Scholefield, for their invaluable assistance in the collation, analysis and presentation of the evidence, and in the preparation of this Report. 1.5 I must also record my appreciation of the work of the Inquiry secretariat, Lee Hughes CBE, Secretary to the Inquiry, his deputy Frances Currie, Press Officer Mike Wicksteed and Paralegal Amy Nicholls. They have organised the administration of the Inquiry in a most efficient and professional manner. 1.6 I am indebted to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, who authorised his officers to continue to provide the investigative and evidential services that had been provided to me as Assistant Coroner charged with the conduct of the inquest into the death of Alexander Litvinenko following the establishment of the Inquiry. I place on record my appreciation of the work of the officers of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) who carried out an exemplary investigation into the death of Mr Litvinenko, and who provided the greatest assistance to me in providing investigative and evidential services in the course of the Inquiry. I should in particular pay tribute to the work carried out by Commander Ball, Detective Inspector Craig Mascall, Detective Chief Inspector Mike Jolly and all members of the Operation Avocet team. 1.7 I was greatly assisted by Solicitors and Counsel for the Core Participants who took part in the Inquiry: Ben Emmerson QC, Adam Straw and Elena Tsirlina for Marina and Anatoly Litvinenko; Richard Horwell QC, Saba Naqshbandi, Jenny Leonard and Prit Mandair for the MPS; Neil Garnham QC, Robert Wastell, Paul Bishop and Catherine Turtle for the Secretary of State; and David Evans QC, Alasdair Henderson and Simon Ramsden for AWE plc. 1.8 My conclusions on the central issues in this Report are to be found at Parts 8, 9 and 10. Those Parts of the Report, and the conclusions they contain, are based on the totality of the evidence that I have heard – that is, both the ‘open’ and the ‘closed’ evidence. The conclusions are mine and mine alone. 7 The Litvinenko Inquiry 8 Part 2: Introduction 2.1 In August 2012, over three years ago, I was appointed to conduct what were then the inquest proceedings concerning the death of Alexander Litvinenko. 2.2 I have described the procedural history of both the inquest and this Inquiry in some detail at Appendix 1, but I propose shortly to summarise the position by way of introduction. 2.3 The inquest proceedings into Mr Litvinenko’s death had been resumed by Dr Andrew Reid, the then Coroner for Inner North London, in late 2011. A considerable amount of work was undertaken in preparation for the inquest, both prior to and following my appointment. However, the inquest proceedings ran into difficulties. In the end, and at my request, the inquest was replaced by the Public Inquiry that I have now conducted. The preparatory work was not wasted – almost all of it was simply carried over to the Inquiry. 2.4 The difficulties with the inquest centred on the existence of sensitive government documents that were relevant to the investigation that I was conducting. More particularly, the documents raised an arguable case that the Russian State bore responsibility for Mr Litvinenko’s death. 2.5 The law does not allow evidence to be taken in what are known as ‘secret’ or ‘closed’ sessions at an inquest. But the government material was so sensitive that it could not be adduced in any form of public or ‘open’ session. The material was therefore excluded from the inquest proceedings under the legal principle known as public interest immunity. 2.6 It has always been my view that the question of possible Russian State responsibility for Mr Litvinenko’s death is one of the most important issues arising from his death. It was an issue that I had intended to investigate at the inquest, but it did not seem right to me to investigate this issue in the knowledge that government material that was of great relevance had been excluded – albeit that it had been excluded for a good reason.