Part 7: The closed evidence

¶7.1 As I have explained elsewhere in this Report, in conducting this Inquiry I have

received and considered both open and closed evidence. Indeed, the main purpose of converting the previous inquest proceedings into a public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 was to enable me to receive such closed evidence, and to take it into account in making my findings.

¶7.2 The preceding Parts of this Report contain my assessment of open evidence. This

Part is concerned with the closed evidence. In the Parts that follow I shall set out my findings and overall conclusions, which are based on both the open and the closed evidence.

¶7.3 Put very shortly, the closed evidence consists of evidence that is relevant to the

Inquiry, but which has been assessed as being too sensitive to put into the public domain. The assessment that the material is sufficiently sensitive to warrant being treated as closed evidence in these proceedings has been made not by me, but by the Home Secretary. She has given effect to this decision by issuing a number of Restriction Notices, which is a procedure specified in section 19 of the Inquiries Act 2005. The Restriction Notices themselves, although not, of course, the sensitive documents appended to them, are public documents. They have been published on the Inquiry website and are also to be found at Appendix 7 to this Report.

¶7.4 There is a considerable quantity of closed documentary evidence in this case. I have also received a number of closed witness statements, some of which are lengthy.

¶7.5 In order to assist me in the task of assessing the closed material, I held closed

hearings of the Inquiry over several days in May 2015. Attendance at those hearings was limited to myself, Counsel and Solicitor to the Inquiry and the legal team for the Home Secretary. The hearings took place in a government building in London. During those hearings, as in the open hearings, I heard oral evidence from witnesses and also received submissions from Counsel regarding documentary evidence. A number of witnesses were called and questioned during the closed hearings. Following the closed hearings, Counsel for the Home Secretary filed, at my request, written submissions addressing the findings that were open to me on a number of issues raised by the closed evidence.

¶7.6 I have admitted into evidence all the documents contained in the hearing bundles to

which I have referred above. I also admitted into evidence the witness statements provided by the witnesses who were called to give evidence, which was a different procedure to that which I adopted during the open hearings.

¶7.7 The following materials will form part of the appendices to this Report, although the

sensitivity of the material will of course mean that they cannot be published in the same way as the other appendices:

¶a. the closed documents (i.e. the contents of the closed hearing bundles)

¶b. the closed witness statements c. the transcripts of the closed hearings d. written submissions filed in the course of the closed hearings

182

¶The Litvinenko Inquiry

¶7.8 The remaining sections of this Part of the Report will address a series of issues that

arise on the closed evidence. I will set out my analysis of the critical closed evidence that relates to those issues, and my findings on them. I do not expect the rest of this Part to be published, since publication of my assessment of this evidence is prohibited by the Restriction Notices to which I have already referred.

¶7.9 For the same reason, it is not possible for me to list in a form that can be published

the issues that I propose to address in this Part. What I can say is that I will consider all the issues arising from the closed evidence that I regard as significant in light of my Terms of Reference. Those issues will include the question of whether Alexander Litvinenko had any sort of relationship with British security and intelligence agencies, and if so the nature and extent of that relationship. The issues will also include the question of whether the Russian State was responsible for Mr Litvinenko's death.

¶7.10 Paragraph 1(ii) of the Terms of Reference requires me to "make such recommendations

as may seem appropriate". I have made one such recommendation. The recommendation concerns the closed evidence that I have heard. Because it would not be possible to publish the recommendation without breaching the Restriction Notices, it appears in this Part of the Report.

183