The Court of Appeal has dismissed the Director of Public Prosecutions’ appeal over a refusal to extend the deadline for challenging a defendant’s return for trial to a court that lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.
The DPP sought judicial review to quash the return of Vasal Kravtsov to Dublin Circuit Criminal Court and have the matter sent back to Blanchardstown District Court. The parties accepted that none of the statutory grounds for Dublin Circuit Criminal Court’s jurisdiction applied: the alleged offences were not committed within its jurisdiction, Kravtsov did not reside there, and he was arrested outside it. The appeal concerned whether the DPP should be allowed to bring the judicial review application more than two years late, not whether the return for trial was jurisdictionally valid.
Kravtsov had been charged with 105 offences alleged to arise from a “ghost brokering” scheme between November 2017 and February 2018. The charges included 57 counts of deception and 48 money-laundering counts. Blanchardstown District Court returned him for trial on 16 June 2020. Under the applicable court rules, the DPP had until 15 September 2020 to seek leave for judicial review. The application was not brought until November 2022.
The DPP said the jurisdictional issue had been identified only in recent weeks and that a mistake had been made inadvertently. The High Court refused to extend time, finding the evidence did not adequately explain the delay or show that the circumstances causing it were outside the DPP’s control or could not reasonably have been anticipated.
In the Court of Appeal, the DPP argued that the public interest in prosecuting serious crime and the absence of demonstrated prejudice to Kravtsov should weigh in favour of an extension. The court recognised that interest, but said the rules also serve a public interest in timely proceedings and compliance with procedural requirements.
The appeal court agreed that the supporting affidavit did not give key details: when and by whom the error was discovered, how it occurred, or why it was not discovered within the three-month period. It also noted the DPP’s institutional resources and ability to maintain safeguards. The court upheld the High Court’s conclusion that the delay had not been sufficiently justified and dismissed the appeal.
The judgment said refusal to quash the existing return for trial may not automatically prevent the DPP from entering a nolle prosequi and pursuing a further prosecution in a court with jurisdiction. The court described that consequence as possible rather than probable. It did not make an order quashing the return for trial or remitting the case to the District Court.