The inquest proceedings

¶10. The Coroner for the district within which the body of a deceased person is lying is required by statute to hold an inquest when there is reasonable cause to suspect that the deceased had died a violent or unnatural death. At the time of Mr Litvinenko's death, the Coroners Act 1988 was in force. This has since been replaced by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Some of the terminology has changed, but the fundamental principles remain the same.

¶11. A Coroner's inquest is a process for investigating the factual circumstances of a death. It is a fact finding inquiry to establish:

¶a. Who the deceased was

¶b. When and where the death occurred

¶c. How the deceased came by his or her death

¶d. The particulars required by the Registration Acts to be registered concerning the death

¶12. The proceedings and evidence at a Coroner's inquest are aimed solely at ascertaining the answers to these questions. Expressions of opinion on any other matter – for example, determining criminal or civil liability – are not allowed. However, the Coroner does have the power to investigate not just the main cause of death, but also "any acts or omissions which directly led to the cause of death".

¶13. Accordingly, on 30 November 2006, the then Coroner for Inner North London (Dr Andrew Reid) formally opened an inquest into Mr Litvinenko's death, and then immediately adjourned it pending the continuation of the police investigation which was already underway. The inquest remained adjourned for nearly five years whilst there was thought to be a prospect that criminal proceedings might be brought.

¶14. On 13 October 2011, the Coroner conducted a pre-inquest hearing to consider whether the inquest should remain adjourned. He noted the position in relation to the criminal investigation, namely that the MPS had made submissions to the CPS, and that the CPS had concluded its consideration of the case. The extradition of one person from Russia had been requested and declined. The CPS had indicated that, although it would wish to proceed with a prosecution, this was not currently possible and there was no impediment to the inquest taking place. The Coroner was satisfied that there was no realistic prospect of any named individual returning to the United Kingdom (UK) either voluntarily or under legal compulsion pursuant to an order for extradition. The Coroner had received submissions from interested persons and potentially interested persons asking him to resume the inquest, and in the absence of objection from the CPS or MPS, he decided that the inquest should be resumed.

¶15. The Coroner announced that he had appointed counsel and solicitors to the Inquest. He stated his intention that the inquest team would provide continuity of representation should a judge subsequently be appointed to act as Deputy Assistant Coroner to conduct the inquest.

¶16. The Coroner also addressed the issue of disclosure. He reached a clear conclusion that the scope of the disclosure exercise should extend to all material as to Mr Litvinenko's personal and professional history that might affect the evaluation of the circumstances in which polonium 210 was administered to his body, how such administration occurred, and all relevant wider circumstances. These criteria for disclosure were deliberately widely drawn, because on the material that he had to date, there was no proper basis to exclude from the disclosure exercise any of the competing theories advanced by different interested persons.

249

¶17. The Coroner listed those whom he considered at that time to be properly interested persons under the Coroners Rules 1984, namely:

¶a. Marina Litvinenko and her son Anatoly

¶b. Mr Litvinenko's children by a previous marriage

¶c. Mr Lugovoy

¶d. Mr Kovtun

¶e. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as the Chief Officer of Police

¶f. Boris Berezovsky

¶18. Finally, the Coroner indicated that he recognised powerful arguments in favour of appointing a more senior member of the judiciary to conduct the inquest. However, the decision to make such an appointment was ultimately a matter for the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice and the decision would to a degree be contingent on the product of disclosure.

¶19. In early January 2012, Lee Hughes was appointed Secretary to the inquest.

¶20. On 16 February 2012, the Deputy Coroner (Dr Shirley Radcliffe) wrote to the Secretary of State for Justice requesting the nomination of a senior member of the judiciary to conduct the inquest.

¶21. On 29 February 2012, the Secretary of State confirmed that, in principle, a senior member of the judiciary should be so appointed.

¶22. On 3 August 2012, the Secretary of State formally confirmed my nomination by the Lord Chief Justice to act as Deputy Assistant Coroner to conduct the inquest.

¶23. On 7 August 2012, the Deputy Coroner accordingly appointed me as Deputy Assistant Coroner.

¶24. On 20 September 2012, I conducted a pre-inquest hearing, the transcript of which is available on the Inquiry website. The primary aim of the hearing was to give a public update in respect of procedural matters. At that hearing, the Secretary of State for the Home Department applied for interested person status. This was granted.

¶25. On 2 November 2012, I conducted a further pre-inquest hearing, the transcript of this hearing is also available on the Inquiry website. This hearing was intended to give a further public update in respect of procedural matters, and also to ensure that the next pre-inquest hearing could effectively and efficiently deal with the substantive legal matters with which it was to be concerned. These issues were listed in written directions given following the hearing.

250

¶26. On 13 December 2012, I held that further pre-inquest hearing. On 17 January 2013, I gave a ruling on the issues argued at the hearing, including on whether or not certain issues should remain included in the scope of the inquest. The ruling on the scope of the inquest can be found on the Inquiry website. A list of issues was subsequently published.

¶27. On 17 December 2012, solicitors acting for the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation (ICRF) applied for interested person status. The application was made on the basis that the ICRF was the Russian federal state agency responsible for the pre-trial investigation of the suspected murder of Mr Litvinenko and the suspected attempted murders of Mr Lugovoy and Mr Kovtun. By active participation in the inquest, according to the application, the ICRF hoped to contribute to and to advance both my and its own understanding of the causes and circumstances of Mr Litvinenko's death. Although Russian law would not permit the ICRF to provide all of its files to me, as an interested person the ICRF would wish to provide as much of the information from its investigation as Russian law would allow and as the investigator recognised as permissible. On 31 January 2013, I granted interested person status to the ICRF.

¶28. On 21 December 2012, solicitors acting for Marina Litvinenko asked for a listing for full argument of her application that the Russian Federation be designated an interested person in the inquest. A submission to that effect had been made at the hearing on 20 September 2012, and repeated at the hearing on 13 December 2012. The Russian Federation had not itself applied for interested person status. On 24 January 2013, I gave a provisional ruling on the issue and invited further written submissions. On 25 March 2013, I gave a ruling refusing the application that the Russian Federation be designated an interested person.