Chapter 6: Events in London 25-28 October
Chapter 6: Events in London 25-28 October
¶6.152 A week after he and Mr Kovtun had flown back to Moscow, Mr Lugovoy returned to
London. He arrived on an evening flight on Wednesday 25 October 2006. On this occasion, he was not accompanied by Mr Kovtun. In further contrast to the earlier trip, the evidence is that Mr Lugovoy's travel on this occasion was hastily arranged. Whereas the arrangements for the first trip (including, it appears, obtaining a visa for Mr Kovtun) had been several weeks in the planning, the evidence was that on this occasion Mr Lugovoy's flight and hotel bookings had been made only the day before he travelled, on Tuesday 24 October 2006.140
¶6.153 In the interim, Mr Litvinenko had made his speech at the Frontline Club about
Anna Politkovskaya's death, publicly attributing the blame for her murder to President Putin. That event had taken place on the evening of Thursday 19 October.
¶6.154 DI Mascall gave evidence that Mr Lugovoy flew into Heathrow on the evening of
25 October on British Airways flight BA875. The flight landed at Heathrow at 10.54pm that evening. The aircraft that made the flight that day was G-BNWX.141 Secondary contamination was subsequently discovered on that aircraft – see further below at paragraphs 6.184 – 6.186.
¶6.155 Mr Lugovoy travelled into central London and booked into the Sheraton Hotel, where he was given room 848.142
¶6.156 In a witness statement that he provided in the Terluk litigation, Mr Lugovoy described
this trip as, "another business trip where I was due to meet with some contacts in London as regards some proposed work".143
¶Meeting with Badri Patarkatsishvili 6.157 There is certainly evidence that Mr Lugovoy met with other business contacts at this time. One of those contacts was Badri Patarkatsishvili.
¶6.158 Mr Patarkatsishvili was a wealthy Georgian businessman who was a close friend and
business partner of Boris Berezovsky. There is evidence that Mr Lugovoy travelled to see Mr Patarkatsishvili at his house in Surrey on 26 October 2006. Mr Patarkatsishvili provided witness statements to the police following Mr Litvinenko's death, but he himself died in 2008. Relevant sections of his statements were therefore read.
¶6.159 Mr Patarkatsishvili had told the police that he had known Mr Lugovoy since about 1993,
142when the latter had been head of security at ORT, the Russian television channel that Mr Patarkatsishvili and Mr Berezovsky had run together. More recently, Mr Lugovoy had organised Mr Patarkatsishvili's security in Georgia. Mr Patarkatsishvili told the police that Mr Lugovoy visited him in Georgia every two months. Mr Patarkatsishvili recalled a business meeting at his house in Surrey during October 2006. He said that, in addition to himself and Mr Lugovoy, the meeting had been attended by Vladimir Voronoff and also a man named Marti Pompadour. He said that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss outdoor advertising in Moscow.144 There is no reason to think that this was anything other than a genuine business meeting.
¶The Litvinenko Inquiry
¶6.160 I heard oral evidence from Bruno Bonetti, the chauffeur who drove Mr Lugovoy to
and from Mr Patarkatsishvili's house on 26 October 2006. Mr Bonetti described how he collected Mr Lugovoy from Park Lane at about 10.30 that morning. He drove him to Surrey, near Leatherhead. With some difficulty, they found Mr Patarkatsishvili's house. Mr Bonetti recalled that Mr Lugovoy sat in the rear near side seat of the car. He said that they did not talk much on the journey – Mr Lugovoy spent most of the time on the telephone, speaking a language that he had not understood. Mr Bonetti thought that they had arrived at Mr Patarkatsishvili's house at about noon. He waited all afternoon and drove Mr Lugovoy back to the hotel at 6.00pm, arriving at about 7.30pm. He said that on the return journey, as on the way out, Mr Lugovoy sat on the rear near side passenger seat.145
¶6.161 Mr Bonetti's car was subsequently tested for radiation and secondary contamination
was discovered. The highest readings were taken on the rear near side passenger seat.146
¶Meeting with Boris Berezovsky 6.162 In his statement in the Terluk case to which I have referred above, Mr Lugovoy stated
that whilst he was at Mr Patarkatsishvili's house, he received a call from Mr Berezovsky, who asked him to visit him in his London offices. Mr Lugovoy went on in his statement to describe going to see Mr Berezovsky and a discussion between the two of them about the provision of personal security in Moscow for a journalist named Elena Tregubova. He also referred in the statement to Mr Glushkov, one of Mr Berezovsky's close associates, coming into the room during the meeting and discussing wine.147
¶6.163 There is no doubt that this meeting did take place. Apart from Mr Lugovoy's evidence,
I received evidence from a number of witnesses who described the meeting in similar terms. This evidence included a statement given to the police by Mr Berezovsky before his death,148 and also oral evidence from Mr Glushkov, who remembered Mr Lugovoy coming to Mr Berezovsky's offices and the discussion about wine.149
¶6.164 A witness statement given by Ms Tregubova was also read.150 She was a Russian
journalist who was actively opposed to the Putin regime. In her statement she explained that she had been afraid for her safety following the murder of Anna Politkovskaya, and that she had asked Mr Berezovsky to assist with her personal security. She said that she was aware at the time that Mr Berezovsky was intending to speak with Mr Lugovoy about her security, and in fact she said that Mr Lugovoy had telephoned her following the meeting.
¶6.165 Whilst it is clear that the meeting took place, there is a conflict in the evidence as to
143precisely when it took place. As I have said, Mr Lugovoy said that it happened shortly after his visit to Mr Patarkatsishvili on 26 October 2006 (it is not clear from Mr Lugovoy's Terluk statement whether his account is that the meeting took place on 26 October following his return from Surrey, or on the following day). Other witnesses, including Mr Berezovsky, Mr Glushkov and Ms Tregubova, have stated that the meeting took
¶Part 6 | Chapters 1 to 8 | The polonium trail – events in October and November 2006
place the following week, during Mr Lugovoy's next (and final) trip to London – either on 31 October or 1 November.
¶6.166 It does not seem to me to be necessary to make a factual finding as to the date of
this meeting. The difference between the dates that have been given for it is small. Moreover, the discrepancy in the dates does not bear on what, to my mind, are the two important points of substance that can be made about this meeting.
¶6.167 First, this episode demonstrates the high degree of trust that Boris Berezovsky placed
in Mr Lugovoy right up until the time that Mr Litvinenko was poisoned. It is apparent from all the evidence that I have heard that Mr Berezovsky was very keen to protect his own safety and that of those around him. It is therefore significant that Mr Lugovoy was permitted entry to Mr Berezovsky's offices – and, indeed, to Mr Berezovsky's personal suite within those offices. Moreover, Mr Lugovoy was asked by Mr Berezovsky to assist in keeping safe one of his friends who feared that she might be at risk from violent pro-Putin elements in Moscow. In short, it seems clear that as late as the end of October 2006, Mr Berezovsky regarded Mr Lugovoy as a trusted associate – someone who was 'one of us' in his dispute with the Putin regime.
¶6.168 In the course of his oral evidence, Mr Felshtinsky told me his understanding
of Mr Berezovsky's relationship with Mr Lugovoy. The following passage of Mr Felshtinsky's evidence is taken from an answer he gave explaining why he had not been at all surprised to find that Mr Berezovsky had invited Mr Lugovoy to his 60th birthday party, held in January 2006:151
"You see, Lugovoy according to legend… was put in prison for organising an escape for Glushkov, a former director of… Aeroflot and a former associate of Boris Berezovsky. So after being released from prison, Lugovoy became, you know, a very close friend of Berezovsky, because he was a person who, because of Berezovsky, spent many months in prison, and Berezovsky actually felt uncomfortable because of this.
The question, of course, is whether Lugovoy was in prison indeed and I doubt that he was."
¶6.169 The second point relates to contamination. Mr Berezovsky provided the police with a
plan showing where both he and Mr Lugovoy had sat, on facing sofas, at the meeting. That plan is in evidence before me, and is also reproduced below. It will be seen that Mr Berezovsky initialled the seat where he sat during his meeting with Mr Lugovoy. His evidence was that Mr Lugovoy sat on the sofa facing him. In the course of his oral evidence, Mr Glushkov was shown the plan and endorsed it.152 Subsequently the police made a plan of the room, which is also reproduced below. On the police plan, the sofa on which Mr Berezovsky sat at the meeting is 'sofa 2' and Mr Lugovoy's sofa is 'sofa 1'.
¶6.170 When Mr Berezovsky's offices were monitored for radiation, secondary contamination
144was found in a number of places. One such place was the photocopier that Mr Litvinenko used when he visited the offices after meeting Mr Lugovoy and Mr Kovtun at the Pine Bar on 1 November 2006. The highest readings, however, were taken from 'sofa 1', the sofa on which Mr Lugovoy had been sitting at his meeting with Mr Berezovsky.153
¶The Litvinenko Inquiry
¶Mr Berezovsky's plan of his office154
¶The police plan of Mr Berezovsky's office155
145¶Part 6 | Chapters 1 to 8 | The polonium trail – events in October and November 2006
¶Other meetings 6.171 The evidence now available to the Inquiry regarding Mr Lugovoy's actions for the
remainder of this trip is limited. The account that Mr Lugovoy gave during his police interview in Moscow did provide further detail in this regard, but for reasons that I have outlined elsewhere (in Appendix 1, paragraphs 127 – 133) the record of that interview is no longer material that I am able to use in evidence.
¶6.172 The records from the Sheraton indicate that Mr Lugovoy had breakfast at the hotel
on the morning of 27 October. Mr Lugovoy's credit card billing and related witness evidence show that he then spent the first part of that morning shopping in the West End.156
¶6.173 Moving on, the Visitors' Book at 58 Grosvenor Street, where CPL had its offices, has
an entry showing Mr Lugovoy arriving there at 11.30 on the morning of 27 October 2006.157 It is to be noted in this regard that the telephone schedule records a number of calls made between Mr Lugovoy and Dr Shadrin the previous day, on 26 October.158 When he gave evidence before me, Dr Shadrin was unable to assist as to whether or not he had seen Mr Lugovoy at his offices on that day.159
¶6.174 It also appears that Mr Lugovoy met Mr Litvinenko during this trip to London. There is
some evidence that the two met at the Sheraton Hotel on the evening of 26 October, after Mr Lugovoy's return from seeing Mr Patarkatsishvili. There is stronger evidence that they met again on the following day,27 Marina Litvinenko 3/44 lines 19-20 Felshtinsky 23/136-137 Reilly 10/27-28 INQ006201 INQ014620; INQ014621 October.
¶6.175 As to 26 October, it appears that Mr Litvinenko may well have met Mr Lugovoy in
the bar of the Sheraton Hotel some time after 7.00pm. It would appear probable that Mr Lugovoy met someone there at that time, since the hotel records include a bar bill in his name timed at 7.50pm for three glasses of wine and two teas.160 Mr Litvinenko, as we have seen, did not drink alcohol.
¶6.176 Various other pieces of evidence indicate that Mr Litvinenko had been in touch with
Mr Lugovoy during the day and that he was in the vicinity of the Sheraton Hotel from shortly before 7.00pm until 9.40pm that evening. The telephone schedule records several telephone calls made between Mr Litvinenko and Mr Lugovoy that day.161 Mr Litvinenko's Oyster Card records show that he travelled into central London in the early afternoon of 26 October, and that he did not return home until after 10.00pm that evening. Cell site evidence shows Mr Litvinenko in the vicinity of the Sheraton at 6.55pm.162 It therefore seems likely that it was he who drank tea with Mr Lugovoy that evening.
¶6.177 There was another bar bill on Mr Lugovoy's account for the next day,27 Marina Litvinenko 3/44 lines 19-20 Felshtinsky 23/136-137 Reilly 10/27-28 INQ006201 INQ014620; INQ014621 October 2006,
146timed at 5.21pm.163 On this occasion, a whisky and two teas were purchased. Cell site evidence again shows Mr Litvinenko to have been in the vicinity of the Sheraton at the time.164 Further, in the course of his interview with the police whilst in hospital,
¶The Litvinenko Inquiry
Mr Litvinenko referred to having purchased a new SIM card for Mr Lugovoy and giving it to him at what he described as their "penultimate meeting" – i.e. their last meeting before the Pine Bar.165 There is evidence that Mr Litvinenko purchased two SIM cards at about 5.00pm on 27 October 2006.166 All this evidence tends to indicate that, as with the previous day, it was Mr Litvinenko who drank tea with Mr Lugovoy on 27 October 2006. DI Mascall stated that the teapots used in the bar at the Sheraton – which was named the Palm Court – were of a silver metal design.167
¶Contamination at the Sheraton Hotel 6.178 As I mentioned above, Mr Lugovoy occupied room 848 at the Sheraton for the nights of 25,26 INQ002076 (page 4) Felshtinsky 23/135-137; Goldfarb 5/113-114 Reilly 10/23-26 Elenora Wall 32/81 INQ014604; INQ014605; INQ014607; INQ014608; INQ014609; INQ014610; INQ014611; INQ014612; INQ014613; INQ014620; INQ014621; INQ014623; INQ014624 and 27 October 2006.
¶6.179 DI Mascall gave evidence about the radioactive contamination found in the hotel.168 He
said that the readings taken there were the highest found in the entire investigation. A1 gave her expert opinion as to the interpretation of these results.169
¶6.180 Secondary contamination was found throughout room 848. As with the Best Western
Hotel, the bathroom was a focus of higher readings. In contrast to the Best Western, however, the readings taken in the bathroom sink and in the disposal pipe from the sink were not especially high. Rather, the highest readings in room 848 were found in the bathroom bin, in particular on one area of the base of the plastic inner casing of the bin. A1 was very confident that these readings were evidence of primary contamination.
¶6.181 The other notable feature of the pattern of contamination at the Sheraton Hotel was
the contamination found in the hotel laundry. Two towels found in the laundry also gave such high radiation readings that A1 considered them to be consistent with primary contamination. DI Mascall explained that, although the towels were not found until January 2007, it had not been possible to ascertain whether or not they had in fact been laundered since October 2006.
¶6.182 Given the readings to which I have referred, it seems likely that the two contaminated
towels in the laundry emanated from room 848. The findings of primary contamination found there indicate that polonium was handled in that room. In their closing submissions, Mr Horwell QC and Mr Emmerson QC suggested that the pattern of contamination was consistent with an accidental spillage, perhaps followed by an attempt to clean up and/or dispose of the solution.
¶Return to Moscow 6.183 Mr Lugovoy rose early on the morning of Saturday 28 October 2006. Hotel records at
the Sheraton indicate that he checked out at 5.30am. He travelled to Heathrow and caught BA flight 872 to Moscow, which took off that morning at 9.10am.
¶6.184 The aircraft making the flight that morning was G-BNWX, the same plane on which he had flown to Heathrow from Moscow three days earlier.170
147¶Part 6 | Chapters 1 to 8 | The polonium trail – events in October and November 2006
¶6.185 This aircraft was tested for contamination at Heathrow on 29 November 2006. It was
discovered that in the month or so since the aircraft had flown on 25 and 28 October, it had undergone a refit, with about half the seats being removed and replaced, and the balance being moved around within the aircraft. The seats in which Mr Lugovoy had been sitting on those dates were, respectively, 6K and 4A. No contamination was found on the seats in those positions when the aircraft was tested on 29 November 2006, although secondary contamination was detected on seat 16K. Secondary contamination was also found on the overhead locker above seats 6J and 6K.171
¶6.186 The seats that had been removed from the aircraft at the time of the refit (which had
taken place on 1 November 2006) had been taken to Blackwood in Wales. They were also tested for contamination.172 There were 118 seats in total, all of which had come from G-BNWX. Three of these seats were found to contain secondary contamination. Whilst they were marked 14A, 14B and 13A, it was unclear whether that was in fact where they had been positioned on the aircraft.
¶6.187 Mr Lugovoy was to return to London within a few days, on Tuesday 31 October 2006.
This time he was accompanied by family and friends, on a trip to watch a football match that had been planned several weeks before.
¶6.188 As we shall see, however, one change to the travel arrangements was made at short
notice. Mr Kovtun was not initially included in any of the travel bookings made in relation to the 31 October trip. However, on 27 October, a ticket was purchased for him to fly from London to Moscow on 3 November, on the same flight upon which all the other members of the party were already booked to return home.
¶6.189 The booking of this ticket appears to mark the moment at which a decision was taken
148to add Mr Kovtun to the party travelling to London the following week. If that is right, the decision was taken midway through Mr Lugovoy's stay at the Sheraton Hotel. I will return in due course to consider whether this change of plan could have had any connection with the contaminated bath towels and waste bin in room 848.
¶The Litvinenko Inquiry