Public access to hearings

¶96. For the substantive hearings, the Inquiry used Court 73 in the Royal Courts of Justice as the main hearing room, together with Court 66 as an additional media annex/ overflow room. Proceedings in Court 73 were relayed to Court 66 by a closed circuit videolink, and screens in Court 66 reproduced documents and the live transcript shown on the display screens in Court 73.

¶97. Normally, members of the media and the public were freely admitted to both hearing rooms. However, because there was a risk that some of the sensitive information protected by restriction notices or restriction orders might be disclosed, inadvertently or otherwise, during the course of the open hearings, all open hearings were conducted under one of the sets of measures set out in a protocol issued on 9 December 2014.

¶98. Under the default measures:

¶a. The public and press would be afforded unrestricted access to the main hearing room, subject to physical capacity constraints

¶b. Proceedings in the main hearing room would be relayed to the media annex by means of a video feed that was delayed by 5 minutes

¶c. The use of mobile electronic devices in the main hearing room would be prohibited to all persons other than me, legal representatives and security cleared Inquiry staff

¶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

¶99. Under enhanced measures:

¶a. The public and press would be excluded from the main hearing room, although access would still be permitted for both the public and the press to the media annex

¶b. Proceedings in the main hearing room would be relayed to the media annex by means of a video feed that was delayed by 5 minutes

¶c. The use of mobile electronic devices in the Inquiry room would be prohibited to all persons other than me, legal representatives and security cleared Inquiry staff

259

¶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:

¶"(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."

260

¶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.