The former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko was probably murdered on the personal orders of Vladimir Putin, the UK public inquiry into his death has found.



Litvinenko, who died from radioactive poisoning in a London hospital in November 2006, was killed by two Russian agents, Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitry Kovtun, the inquiry report said. There was a “strong probability” they were acting on behalf of the Russian FSB secret service, the report added.

Sir Robert Owen, the inquiry chair, said that taken as a whole the open evidence that had been heard in court amounted to a “strong circumstantial case” that the Russian state was behind the assassination.

But when he took into account all the evidence available to him, including a “considerable quantity” of secret intelligence that was not aired in open court, he found “that the FSB operation to kill Mr Litvinenko was probably approved by [Nikolai] Patrushev [head of the security service in 2006] and also by President Putin”.

Marina Litvinenko, Alexander’s widow, welcomed the report’s “damning finding” and called for the UK to impose sanctions on Russia, in a statement read outside the Royal Courts of Justice, where the inquiry took place. But she claimed she had been given indications that the UK would do nothing.

She added: “I’m also calling for the imposing of targeted economic sanctions and travel bans against named individuals ... including Mr Putin. I received a letter last night from the home secretary promising action ... [but] it [signalled] that the prime minister would do nothing in the face of the damaging findings of Sir Robert Owen.”

At the morning lobby briefing, Downing Street said the findings were “extremely disturbing” but added that the government would have to weigh up any further actions in light of the need to work with Russia on tackling Isis.

David Cameron’s official spokeswoman said the report “regrettably confirms what we and previous governments already believed to date”.

“We have to weigh carefully the need to take measures with the broader need to work with Russia on certain issues,” she said. The spokeswoman added: “When you look at the threat from Daesh, it is an example of where you put... national security first.”

She said measures taken against Russia have included expelling four embassy officials, tighter visa controls on diplomatic staff and limiting cooperation with the FSB were still in place.

The inquiry also found:

• Organisations and individuals within the Russian state had multiple motives to kill Litvinenko, including a “personal ... antagonism” between the dead man and Putin.

• “Leading opponents of President Putin, including those living outside Russia, were at risk of assassination … One of the risks they faced was that of being poisoned.”

• It is “entirely possible” that Lugovoi had been planning to target and potentially murder Litvinenko from as early as 2004.

• Putin’s favourable treatment of Lugovoi in the years since the murder shows “that the Russian state approves of Mr Litvinenko’s killing, or at least that it wishes to signal approval for it”.

• A T-shirt sent by Lugovoi to Boris Berezovsky, a Russian exile and close Litvinenko ally, in 2010, reading “Nuclear death is knocking at your door”, “can only be seen as [Lugovoi’s] gleeful acknowledgement of his part in Mr Litvinenko’s death”.

• Suggestions that Litvinenko could instead have been killed on the orders of the Russian mafia were “not implausible” given the dead man’s work in exposing their links to the Kremlin, but were not supported by the available evidence.

In response to the report, Moscow was glacial. Maria Zakharova, a spokeswoman for the Russian foreign ministry, said: “We regret that a purely criminal case has been politicised and has darkened the general atmosphere of our bilateral relations.”

She added that the public inquiry “had a clear political subtext”, criticising the fact that some evidence had been heard in closed session.

“Taking this into account, there were little grounds to expect that the final report of a process that was politically motivated and highly opaque, and prepared with a pre-determined ‘correct’ result in mind, would suddenly turn out to be objective and balanced,” she said.

Lugovoi, who is now an MP with a nationalist political party in Russia, described the inquiry’s findings as absurd. He told Interfax: “As we expected, there was no sensation. The results released today just show London’s anti-Russian position once again; the narrow-mindedness and lack of desire among the British to find the real reason for the death of Litvinenko.

“The 2014 events in Ukraine, which coincided with the resumption of the investigation into the Litvinenko case even though previously it had been declared secret, look like a pathetic attempt by London to use a ‘skeleton in the cupboard’ to support their political ambitions. I hope this ‘polonium process’ will once and for all dispel the myth about the impartiality of British justice.”



Inquiry heard it was ‘entirely possible’ Andrei Lugovoi, pictured, was planning to target Litvinenko from as early as 2004. Photograph: Justin Jin

An unnamed source speaking to the state-owned news agency RIA was quoted as saying: “Moscow will not accept the verdict of the British court in the Litvinenko case. London has violated the principle of presumption of innocence.”

Echoing the view expressed by a string of Russian officials in recent days, the unnamed source added that Moscow found it “illegitimate” that parts of the trial had been kept secret, and predicted “serious consequences” for relations between London and Moscow.

The findings will cause a significant diplomatic headache for the British government. Litvinenko, a former agent in the FSB, had acquired British citizenship shortly before his death, after fleeing Russia six years earlier, and David Cameron will come under pressure to respond robustly to the state-sponsored assassination of a UK citizen on the streets of London.

Marina Litvinenko claimed she had been given indications the UK would not act on the inquiry’s findings. Photograph: Philip Toscano/PA

While he lay dying in a London hospital bed, Litvinenko had pointedly accused the Russian president of being behind the murder, telling Metropolitan police officers that the order “could have been given by only one person” – Putin.

Chris Bryant, the shadow leader of the house, said he “fully understood why Britain wants to engage with Russia – it is a key player in Syria and Iran”. But he added: “The one thing we know about the murderous kleptomaniac regime in Russia is that it walks all over the weak. Putin has no respect for those that let him do what he wants.

Photo issued by Litvinenko inquiry of the teapot used to poison the former Russian spy. Photograph: Litvinenko Inquiry/PA

“In March 2012 the government declared unanimously it wanted to introduce the Magnitsky Act ensuring no one involved in the murder of Magnitsky or the corruption that he unveiled should be able to enter this country. The US has such an act. Is it not time we made absolutely clear that Russian murderers are not welcome in this country and the likes of Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitiri Kovtun can only enter the country if they are prepared to stand trial?”

Tony Brenton, who was British ambassador to Russia at the time of the killing, said that while the UK must react strongly to the murder, tearing up diplomatic relations with Moscow was “not in Britain’s interests”.

Speaking to BBC Radio 4, he said: “We have quite important other fish to fry with the Russians. They are very important in carrying the Iran de-nuclearisation; they are absolutely crucial in sorting out the mess in Syria.”