The High Court has refused the Director of Public Prosecutions an extension of time to challenge a return for trial in a case involving 105 alleged offences, dismissing the judicial review proceedings as out of time.
The application sought to quash a June 2020 order sending Vasyl Kravtsov for trial at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court and remit the case to the District Court. The charges include 57 counts of deception and 48 counts of money laundering, arising from an alleged ghost-broker scheme in 2017 and 2018. The alleged offences were said to have occurred in Louth, Kildare and other places unknown within the State.
The parties agreed that Dublin Circuit Criminal Court lacked jurisdiction because none of the statutory grounds for its jurisdiction applied. Kravtsov resides in County Kildare and was arrested in Leixlip, County Kildare. Although Leixlip is within the Dublin Metropolitan District for the relevant District Court process, the judgment states that Kildare Circuit Criminal Court would have jurisdiction if the arrest location were relied on.
The DPP first sought to quash the return so the charges could be brought again and Kravtsov tried in Dublin with a co-accused. By the November 2023 hearing, the DPP had changed position and sought remittal so the case could proceed in Kildare. Kravtsov did not oppose the substantive relief if the court extended time, but contested the extension.
The three-month period to seek judicial review expired on 15 September 2020. Proceedings began in November 2022, about 26 months late. The DPP said the jurisdictional mistake had only been identified in recent weeks and relied on inadvertence. The judge found that the affidavit gave little explanation for the delay, including why the error had not been noticed during more than two years of Circuit Court appearances. The information needed to establish jurisdiction had been available to the DPP from the outset.
The court also considered the effect of the delay on Kravtsov. The judge rejected the suggestion that he was responsible for the lost January 2023 trial date because he opposed the application on time grounds. The delay in progressing the charges followed from the jurisdictional error and the failure to identify it in time.
The court held that a bare mistake did not amount to a good and sufficient reason for extending time in the circumstances. It also concluded that the inadvertence was neither outside the DPP’s control nor beyond reasonable anticipation. The judge refused an extension of time, refused all relief on that basis and dismissed the proceedings. The court did not determine the substantive challenge to the return for trial.