Chapter 4: Visa applications

¶6.44 The first of the journeys to London with which this Part is concerned was that made

by Mr Lugovoy and Mr Kovtun between 16 and 18 October 2006. This was to be Mr Kovtun's first trip to the UK, and he therefore needed to apply for a visa. As I have mentioned, Mr Lugovoy had made several visits to London in the preceding months and years. As it happened, his previous UK visa had expired earlier in 2006 and he applied for a further visa in May 2006.

¶6.45 Both Mr Lugovoy and Mr Kovtun made their applications in writing to the British

Embassy in Moscow. The applications were considered by two different British entry clearance officers posted to the Embassy. I heard oral evidence from both.

¶Visa application by Mr Lugovoy 6.46 Mr Lugovoy's visa application form was dated 23 May 2006.27 Evidence about the

form (which was completed in Russian) and the procedure by which the application was considered was given by Mr Nigel Moughton, who was at the time in question an entry clearance officer at the British Embassy in Moscow.28

¶6.47 Mr Moughton explained that Mr Lugovoy's application was for a tourist visa (section

5.3 of the form); the form further stated that Mr Lugovoy wished to travel to the UK on 31 May for eight days. Evidence of the booking at the hotel in London at which Mr Lugovoy intended to stay on this trip was attached to the form.

¶6.48 Mr Moughton gave evidence about the checks that would have been undertaken in

relation to the application after it had arrived at the Embassy. He said that Mr Lugovoy's name would have been checked against a 'Warnings Index' to make sure, as he put it, "that the person is not of interest to a multitude of government agencies".29 This check was completed on this occasion, and the result recorded was that Mr Lugovoy had 'No Trace' on the Warnings Index.

¶6.49 Mr Moughton stated that the form was then subject to a number of further checks

by local staff. It was at this stage that a query was raised by an entry clearance officer other than Mr Moughton in respect of Mr Lugovoy's application, namely that Mr Lugovoy had travelled on eight occasions under his previous six month visa. Mr Moughton explained that he had not been involved at this stage; his understanding was that the volume of Mr Lugovoy's previous travel was considered to be unusual and to require an explanation.

¶6.50 Mr Lugovoy was accordingly telephoned and asked why he had used his last visa

eight times, and what he had been doing in the UK on those occasions. There is a manuscript note of the telephone conversation.30 Mr Lugovoy is recorded as saying that:

"he has travelled to the UK purely for holidays because he has friends there (Aleksander Litvinenko) and he likes the UK. He travelled either alone or with his wife."

118

¶The Litvinenko Inquiry

¶6.51 Mr Moughton's evidence was that this manuscript note would have been passed back

to the entry clearance officer then considering the application. It would appear that the explanation did not entirely satisfy that official, since Mr Lugovoy was then asked to attend for interview.

¶6.52 The interview took place on 6 June 2006. Mr Moughton was one of those assigned

to conduct interviews that day, and he interviewed Mr Lugovoy, with the assistance of an interpreter. The interview was short and there is a transcript amongst the papers attached to the application form. Mr Lugovoy confirmed the accuracy of the form. Mr Moughton asked him again what he had been doing on his eight visits to the UK in the previous six months and Mr Lugovoy's answer is recorded as "Travel holiday".

¶6.53 Mr Moughton saw no reason to refuse Mr Lugovoy's application and therefore granted

him a further six month visa. It was this visa that Mr Lugovoy used on his visits to the UK in October and November 2006.

¶6.54 There are a few short points to be made about this episode.

¶6.55 First, Mr Lugovoy gave Mr Litvinenko's name as a contact in the UK and this was

recorded on the papers. From this time if not from earlier, there was express evidence of a link between the two men.

¶6.56 Second, Mr Lugovoy was recorded as a 'No Trace' on the Warnings Index

notwithstanding his previous employment in the Committee for State Security (KGB) and in the Federal Protection Service (FPS). Mr Moughton made it clear that, had he known of these matters, they might have influenced the questions that he asked at interview.31

¶6.57 These points might have been relevant to the issue of preventability – i.e. whether

UK authorities might have done more to protect Mr Litvinenko's safety. However, that issue was expressly excluded from the Terms of Reference (see Appendix 2) as a consequence of my ruling of 17 May 2013 given in the course of the inquest proceedings to the effect that there was no material within the documents that I had then considered to suggest that at any material time Mr Litvinenko was or ought to have been assessed by the UK authorities as being at a real and immediate threat to his life.

¶Visa application by Mr Kovtun 6.58 Mr Kovtun's application for a UK visa was dated 2 October 2006.32

¶6.59 The official at the British Embassy in Moscow who considered Mr Kovtun's application

was Mr Fitzgerald. I heard oral evidence from him,33 and have also admitted into evidence a statement that he gave to the Metropolitan Police Service.34

¶6.60 In contrast to the procedure that had been followed regarding Mr Lugovoy's visa

application earlier in the year, Mr Fitzgerald saw no need to interview Mr Kovtun. His evidence was that he granted the visa on the day that the application form was received at the Embassy – 5 October 2006.

119

¶Part 6 | Chapters 1 to 8 | The polonium trail – events in October and November 2006

¶6.61 In further contrast to Mr Lugovoy's application, Mr Kovtun applied for a business

visa. Mr Kovtun described himself in his application form as the general director of a Russian company named Global Project Ltd and asserted that he had a monthly income of 65,000 roubles. He named a British company called Continental Petroleum Ltd (CPL) as his contact in the UK, and attached to his form a letter from the Chairman of CPL, named Mr Balfour, which was addressed to the British Embassy in Moscow.35 In his letter Mr Balfour requested that Mr Kovtun be granted an entry visa. The letter confirmed that Global Project Ltd had been founded in 2003 and that Mr Kovtun had been general director of the company since 5 December 2003. It added that, "the company provides consulting services in development of Russian oil and gas markets."

¶6.62 The contents of Mr Kovtun's visa application form and the letter from Mr Balfour

raise for the first time a number of related issues concerning Mr Kovtun. Was his supposed successful business career in Russia genuine? Did he work with CPL? Did he have genuine business reasons for travelling to London in October and early November 2006?

¶6.63 I heard evidence from a number of witnesses on these matters which I will detail in

due course. It may, however, assist if at this stage I identify the issues in a little more detail and give some preliminary views in relation to them:

a. There is no evidence, other than that emanating from Mr Lugovoy and from Mr Kovtun himself, that Mr Kovtun was a wealthy and successful businessman in 2006. As I have explained in some detail above, at paragraphs 6.35 – 6.40, the evidence of Inna Hohne and of Marina and Elenora Wall was strongly inconsistent with such a suggestion. Further, as we shall see, it is a striking feature of the evidence relating to his activities in October and November 2006 that Mr Kovtun did not appear to live the lifestyle of a rich businessman. He did not pay for drinks or meals in London, and the evidence is that he had to ask his ex-wife's boyfriend to pay for his flight from Hamburg to London because he did not have a credit card

b. There is, on the other hand, plenty of evidence to demonstrate the existence of a business relationship between CPL and Mr Lugovoy. Witnesses such as Dr Shadrin and Mr Voronoff, to whom I shall return, attested to this

c. It was also apparent from the evidence of these and other witnesses that Mr Lugovoy drew Mr Kovtun into his work with CPL. I shall return to the detail of this evidence in due course

d. Perhaps the most important issue in this regard is whether Mr Kovtun's business dealings with CPL (or for that matter any other companies) provide a sufficient explanation for his two trips to London in October and November 2006. On this issue, as we shall see, there are discrepancies between the evidence of Mr Kovtun on the one hand and Dr Shadrin on the other

¶6.64 Another notable feature of Mr Kovtun's visa application was its timing in relation to

other events. As Mr Horwell QC observed in his closing submissions,36 it is striking that the bookings for Mr Lugovoy's and Mr Kovtun's flights to London on 16 October and the bookings for their hotel rooms on that trip were made a few days after Mr Kovtun's

120

¶The Litvinenko Inquiry

visa was issued on 5 October.37 It would appear to be a reasonable inference from this sequence, as Mr Horwell suggested, that Mr Kovtun's presence on the trip was deemed essential, or at least very important. The question that I will need to address is why Mr Kovtun's presence on this trip was apparently considered to be so desirable. Was it, as his visa application form asserted, for business reasons? Or were there other reasons for Mr Kovtun accompanying Mr Lugovoy to London?

121

¶Part 6 | Chapters 1 to 8 | The polonium trail – events in October and November 2006