This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/19/alexander-litvinenko-coroner-russian-involvement-death-polonium

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Alexander Litvinenko coroner will not consider Russian involvement in death Alexander Litvinenko coroner will not consider Russian involvement in death
(about 1 hour later)
The coroner presiding over the inquest into the death of Alexander Litvinenko has said he is unable to consider whether Russia was involved or if the UK could have prevented the killing. The Russian state's alleged role in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko will no longer be considered as part of his inquest, after the coroner overseeing the process "reluctantly" ruled to exclude the issue from the scope of his inquiry.
Sir Robert Owen ruled that the two issues should be withdrawn from the scope of the inquest after the government mounted a successful legal bid to keep documents that might be relevant secret. The coroner, Sir Robert Owen, has previously been told that a review of British government material relating to the 2006 killing established a "prima facie case" that Russia was responsible. But as a result of a successful application earlier this year by the foreign secretary, William Hague, to keep crucial evidence secret, the coroner concluded on Thursday that it would be better to exclude the issue than to risk "an incomplete and potentially misleading" verdict.
Litvinenko, 43, a spy who became a Russian dissident and arch-critic of Vladimir Putin, died of poisoning by radioactive polonium-210 in 2006 after drinking tea during a meeting with former security colleagues at the Millennium hotel in London. Litvinenko's widow, Marina, and their son Anatoly have applied for permission to seek a judicial review of the government's decision not to hold a public inquiry into his death. Owen had also called for a public inquiry, saying it was the only way the death could be properly investigated. Home secretary Theresa May's decision to refuse an inquiry was partly motivated by a fear of offending Russia, she acknowledged.
He died three weeks later. The coroner also ruled to exclude the question of possible British culpability in failing to prevent Litvinenko's death, after concluding that this, too, was an area where his investigations would be fatally hampered by government secrecy. Litvinenko, who had fled Russia and become a British citizen was working as an MI6 spy at the time of his 2006 poisoning with radioactive polonium, the coroner has previously heard.
His relationship with British intelligence has been cited as a possible motive for his murder. His judgment means that unless Mrs Litvinenko manages to overturn the ruling on a public inquiry, it is highly unlikely there will ever be an open investigation into the killing. The Crown Prosecution Service has sought the extradition from Russia of two men, Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitry Kovtun, on suspicion of Litvinenko's murder, but Russia refused the requests. Both men deny murder.
Owen said that he could not properly consider the two issues without considering the secret evidence. Setting out the reasons for his judgment, Owen said: "The issue of Russian state responsibility remains of central importance. It raises the question of whether agents or institutions of the Russian State deliberately murdered [Litvinenko] in London, which has extremely grave implications." The question of preventability, similarly, was "an issue of the highest importance". However, "if any investigation of this issue is to be embarked upon, it must be an investigation which can properly and thoroughly examine the issue".
Addressing the question of whether the British authorities could have done anything to prevent the murder, he said: "This is an issue of the highest importance, involving as it does the possible culpability of the British state for the death of Alexander Litvinenko. Not being able to do so, he said he was "reluctantly" forced to conclude that "neither the interests of the interested parties nor the public interest will be served by an investigation of this issue on an incomplete and potentially misleading basis".
"If any investigation of this issue is to be embarked upon, it must be an investigation which can properly and thoroughly examine the issue, so that a conclusion soundly based on reliable factual evidence can be arrived at."
Dealing with the question of Russian involvement, he said: "Neither the interests of the interested parties nor the public interest will be served by an investigation of this issue on an incomplete and potentially misleading basis.
"I have therefore reluctantly come to the conclusion that Russian state responsibility should also be withdrawn from the scope of the inquest."
Secret evidence could be taken into account if a public inquiry were held into Litvinenko's death, but the home secretary, Theresa May, has already ruled this out, admitting that relations with Russia were a factor.
In July, she wrote to Owen: "It is true that international relations have been a factor in the government's decision-making.
"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.
"However, this has not been a decisive factor and it if had stood alone would not have led the government to refuse an inquiry."
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.