Home secretary admits diplomatic ties were factor in rejecting judge's request for inquiry into Russian ex-spy's death in 2006
Marina Litvinenko, widow of the former Russian spy Alexander, outside the high court in London. She called May's decision 'political'.
A fear of alienating Russia was a factor in the government's decision to refuse a public inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko, the home secretary, Theresa May, has admitted.
The government said last week that it had decided not to grant a request from a senior judge for an inquiry into the former Russian spy's apparent murder in 2006, in a decision that Litvinenko's widow, Marina, said was "political". Sir Robert Owen, who is sitting as coroner overseeing Litvinenko's inquest, had called for the inquiry after concluding that it was the only way he could consider secret intelligence evidence relating to the killing.
In a letter published on Friday setting out the reasons behind her decision, May admitted: "It is true that international relations have been a factor in the government's decision-making." She argued that the reasons for granting an inquiry might not be "readily grasped" by the Kremlin and others.
"An inquest managed and run by an independent coroner is more readily explainable to some of our foreign partners, and the integrity of the process more readily grasped, than an inquiry, established by the government, under a chairman appointed by the government, which has the power to see government material, potentially relevant to their interests, in secret."
Under coroners' rules, any information considered must be disclosed to all "interested parties", which in this case includes the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, the country's equivalent to the FBI. By contrast, the coroner had argued, an inquiry would allow him or another chair to consider intelligence evidence in examining the circumstances of Litvinenko's death, even if it were not made public.
Pre-inquest hearings have already heard that Litvinenko, a former KGB officer who had fled Russia and been granted British citizenship, was acting as an MI6 spy at the time of his death in November 2006 from polonium poisoning, and that Britain's evidence amounted to a "prima facie case" that he was killed by agents of the Russian state.
The radioactive substance was allegedly administered in a cup of tea during a meeting in a London hotel with two other former KGB agents, Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitry Kovtun. Both men deny murder.
The killing sparked the most severe diplomatic crisis between the UK and Russia since the end of the cold war, involving the tit-for-tat expulsion of diplomats and suspension of security co-operation, which was only reinstated following a meeting of David Cameron and Vladimir Putin in May.
In her letter, May said that international relations had not been the "decisive factor" in her ruling, citing also the cost of an inquiry. The government believed an inquest would "go a substantial way" to allaying public concern, she said, while the report compiled following an inquiry would not be able to disclose the secret evidence it had considered in any case.
In addition, she wrote, considering the issues of Russian state responsibility "involves a wider investigation than you are necessarily obliged to conduct as a coroner … The government believes, with respect, that it would be perfectly possible to conduct an inquest aimed at answering the statutory questions without considering the sensitive material at all."
Speaking after the government decision was disclosed last week, Ben Emmerson QC, representing Marina Litvinenko, said the ruling showed "utter contempt" for the position of Mrs Litvinenko and her son Anatoly and was part of "a catalogue of disrespect to the judiciary and disrespect of victims of crime". He suggested the government was "unable to come up with a principled explanation for declining the request made by a judicial authority who has seen the very material on which the imperative need for a public inquiry is based."
A spokeswoman for Mrs Litvinenko's legal team declined to comment on the content of the letter on Friday, but said they were preparing a judicial review of the decision not to grant an inquiry, subject to "a number of procedural obligations including securing public funding".
The government said last week that it had decided not to grant a request from a senior judge for an inquiry into the former Russian spy's apparent murder in 2006, in a decision that Litvinenko's widow, Marina, said was "political". Sir Robert Owen, who is sitting as coroner overseeing Litvinenko's inquest, had called for the inquiry after concluding that it was the only way he could consider secret intelligence evidence relating to the killing.
In a letter published on Friday setting out the reasons behind her decision, May admitted: "It is true that international relations have been a factor in the government's decision-making." She argued that the reasons for granting an inquiry might not be "readily grasped" by the Kremlin and others.
"An inquest managed and run by an independent coroner is more readily explainable to some of our foreign partners, and the integrity of the process more readily grasped, than an inquiry, established by the government, under a chairman appointed by the government, which has the power to see government material, potentially relevant to their interests, in secret."
Under coroners' rules, any information considered must be disclosed to all "interested parties", which in this case includes the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, the country's equivalent to the FBI. By contrast, the coroner had argued, an inquiry would allow him or another chair to consider intelligence evidence in examining the circumstances of Litvinenko's death, even if it were not made public.
Pre-inquest hearings have already heard that Litvinenko, a former KGB officer who had fled Russia and been granted British citizenship, was acting as an MI6 spy at the time of his death in November 2006 from polonium poisoning, and that Britain's evidence amounted to a "prima facie case" that he was killed by agents of the Russian state.
The radioactive substance was allegedly administered in a cup of tea during a meeting in a London hotel with two other former KGB agents, Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitry Kovtun. Both men deny murder.
The killing sparked the most severe diplomatic crisis between the UK and Russia since the end of the cold war, involving the tit-for-tat expulsion of diplomats and suspension of security co-operation, which was only reinstated following a meeting of David Cameron and Vladimir Putin in May.
In her letter, May said that international relations had not been the "decisive factor" in her ruling, citing also the cost of an inquiry. The government believed an inquest would "go a substantial way" to allaying public concern, she said, while the report compiled following an inquiry would not be able to disclose the secret evidence it had considered in any case.
In addition, she wrote, considering the issues of Russian state responsibility "involves a wider investigation than you are necessarily obliged to conduct as a coroner … The government believes, with respect, that it would be perfectly possible to conduct an inquest aimed at answering the statutory questions without considering the sensitive material at all."
Speaking after the government decision was disclosed last week, Ben Emmerson QC, representing Marina Litvinenko, said the ruling showed "utter contempt" for the position of Mrs Litvinenko and her son Anatoly and was part of "a catalogue of disrespect to the judiciary and disrespect of victims of crime". He suggested the government was "unable to come up with a principled explanation for declining the request made by a judicial authority who has seen the very material on which the imperative need for a public inquiry is based."
A spokeswoman for Mrs Litvinenko's legal team declined to comment on the content of the letter on Friday, but said they were preparing a judicial review of the decision not to grant an inquiry, subject to "a number of procedural obligations including securing public funding".
0 comments:
Post a Comment