On 23 November 2006, Alexander Litvinenko died at University College Hospital in central London.

Before Mr Litvinenko's death, the police had already commenced an investigation into his apparent poisoning.
Once the investigation established that Mr Litvinenko had been poisoned with polonium 210, which was discovered on the day of his death, the priority of the investigation became the operation to protect public health. It became important to identify members of the public who may have been contaminated. The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) worked with the Health Protection Agency (now known as Public Health England) on this.
Immediately following Mr Litvinenko's death, over 200 police officers were involved with the investigation. More than 60 scenes were examined and assessed. These included hotels, offices, restaurants, nightclubs and bars, residential premises, public transport vehicles, aeroplanes, a football stadium and hospitals. More than 40 requests were made for mutual legal assistance to more than 15 countries.
On 22 May 2007, the MPS/Crown Prosecution Service (the CPS) considered that there was sufficient evidence to charge Andrey Lugovoy with the murder of Mr Litvinenko. An application was made to City of Westminster Magistrates' Court for the issue of a warrant for Mr Lugovoy's arrest.
Following further investigation, the MPS/CPS considered that there was sufficient evidence also to charge Dmitri Kovtun with the murder of Mr Litvinenko. An application was made to City of Westminster Magistrates' Court on 4 November 2011 for the issue of a warrant for Mr Kovtun's arrest.
In addition to the issue of these warrants, Mr Lugovoy and Mr Kovtun have been placed on international lists of wanted persons. They both remain wanted for Mr Litvinenko's murder. However, they have both remained within the Russian Federation, from which they cannot be extradited as they are both Russian citizens.
Because they are both still wanted for Mr Litvinenko's murder, the criminal investigation by the MPS continues.
The MPS also provided assistance to the inquest proceedings and the Inquiry proceedings (the procedures in which are further described below). Officers of the MPS have acted as Coroner's officers in addition to their criminal investigation duties. The evidence collated by the MPS formed the majority of the evidence available to the inquest. Further, after the establishment of the Inquiry, the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis gave consent for his officers to continue to assist the Inquiry in a similar role.

¶The Litvinenko Inquiry

¶The inquest proceedings

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.
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

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".
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.
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.
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.
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

249

¶Appendix 1 | The history of the Inquiry and procedures adopted 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.

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

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.
In early January 2012, Lee Hughes was appointed Secretary to the inquest.
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.
On 29 February 2012, the Secretary of State confirmed that, in principle, a senior member of the judiciary should be so appointed.
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.
On 7 August 2012, the Deputy Coroner accordingly appointed me as Deputy Assistant Coroner.
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.
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

¶The Litvinenko Inquiry

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.
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.
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.

¶Government disclosure and public interest immunity 29. On 11 January 2012, the Solicitor to the Inquest made a written request for disclosure of documentation by the government. Disclosure was requested of documents held by all UK government departments and agencies relating to the circumstances of Mr Litvinenko's death. Specific requests were made for any documents relating to the circumstances of Mr Litvinenko's poisoning and death; the history of any contact between Mr Litvinenko and any UK government departments or agencies; and any records of risks and/or threats to him prior to his death, together with any action taken or considered in response.

In response to this request, the government collated material and made it available for inspection to counsel and the solicitor to the inquest. Access was first granted for inspection of this collated material in late August 2012. The process of collating further material and making it available to the inquest team continued thereafter. In making this material available for inspection, the government made it clear that it reserved its position both as to the relevance of the material, and as to the making of applications for public interest immunity (PII) in relation to it. This was done with the intention of ensuring that the progress of this investigation was not delayed, whilst at the same time preserving the government's position in relation to disclosure in the event that I determined that some or all of the material reviewed was relevant to the inquest and should be disclosed to interested persons.

251

¶Appendix 1 | The history of the Inquiry and procedures adopted

For the hearing on 13 December 2012, counsel to the inquest prepared an open and a closed version of a note concerning the material which had been made available by the government for inspection. The notes expressed a provisional view about that material, as the process of making the material available and inspecting the material was continuing. Counsel to the inquest noted that a significant proportion of the material was of a sensitive nature. The government had made it clear that it was very likely that it would object to the disclosure of the material to interested persons on grounds of PII. However, it was possible to state high level conclusions as to the effect of the government material. These related solely to the effect of the government material taken alone.
Counsel to the inquest expressed the view that the government material did establish a prima facie case as to the culpability of the Russian State in Mr Litvinenko's death. However, it did not establish a prima facie case as to the culpability of the British State in itself carrying out (by its servants or agents) the poisoning of Mr Litvinenko, or in failing to take reasonable steps to protect him from a real and immediate risk to his life. It did not establish a prima facie case as to the involvement of Mr Berezovsky, Spanish mafia and/or other criminal organisations, Mario Scaramella, or Chechen groups, in Mr Litvinenko's death. It did not establish a prima facie case as to the making by Alexander Talik of threats to kill Mr Litvinenko, or as to any more general involvement on his part in Mr Litvinenko's death. Counsel to the inquest said that a conclusion to the effect that the government material did not establish a prima facie case in respect of any particular issue was not to be interpreted as meaning that there was no evidence at all on that issue contained in the government material.
On 29 January 2013, I gave directions that any PII certificate was to be served by 15 February 2013, and for a consequent timetable for the determination of any PII issues.
On 7 February 2013, the then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (the Rt Hon William Hague MP) made a certificate claiming PII in respect of a sample of documents selected from the material made available by the government for inspection.
On 26 February 2013, I conducted a public hearing to consider the PII application, at which all interested persons had the opportunity to make submissions, as well as a number of media organisations who were legally represented. The transcript of this hearing is available on the Inquiry website. Following legal submissions made at that hearing, on 27 February 2013 I ruled that:

¶a. I had jurisdiction to hold a private hearing at which to consider the merits of the

¶PII claim b. Rather than hold a private hearing in which to address the adequacy of the

¶PII certificate, and specifically whether the claim could and should be further particularised without defeating the claim under consideration, I would continue with the private hearing to consider the merits of the PII claim. If in the course of that hearing it became clear that the claim could be further particularised in a manner that would not jeopardise the claim, and that I would be assisted by further submissions from the interested persons, then I would reconvene the public hearing

252

¶The Litvinenko Inquiry c. It was neither necessary nor appropriate to appoint special counsel or PII advocates to represent the interests of interested persons in the disclosure proceedings

There was then a private hearing of the application, from which the public and most of the interested persons were excluded, at which I considered the merits of the PII claim in more detail.
On 17 May 2013, I gave my ruling on the PII application, which is available on the Inquiry website. I rejected part of the PII claim, and concluded that some of the information that was covered by the PII claim could and should be disclosed.
First, I concluded that a number of lines of enquiry could be identified as lines of enquiry to which the documents that were the subject of the PII claim related. Those lines of enquiry included amongst others:

¶a. The possible involvement of Russian State agencies in the death of Mr Litvinenko b. The properties and uses of polonium 210 c. UK authorities' knowledge and/or assessment of threats or risks to Mr Litvinenko's life in 2000-2006 d. Decisions or actions taken to manage any identified risk

¶Some other lines of enquiry which I concluded could be similarly identified were redacted in anticipation of a challenge to my ruling.

Second, a description could be given of the types of sensitivity which underpinned the PII claim, and this was set out in my ruling.
Third, my ruling was able to state:

¶a. That I had considered the PII claim brought in relation to the material relevant to the issue of the possible involvement of Russian State agencies in Mr Litvinenko's death and had upheld the claim b. That I had considered the PII claim brought in relation to the material relevant to the preventability issue and had upheld the claim c. That I had considered the PII claim brought in relation to the material relevant to an identified issue (which was redacted) and had concluded that some gists could and should be given in respect of those issues d. The terms of the gists which should be given (which were redacted)

¶e. That I had upheld the PII claim in respect of further material relating to other issues

On 31 May 2013, the Foreign Secretary commenced an application for judicial review of the parts of my decision represented by the redacted parts of that ruling. In October 2013, a Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court (constituted by Lord Justice Goldring, Lord Justice Treacy and Mr Justice Mitting) conducted substantive hearings of this application in public and private hearings.

253

¶Appendix 1 | The history of the Inquiry and procedures adopted