Kotova v Director of Public Prosecutions [2015] EWHC 4111 (Admin) (08 December 2015)

Kotova v Director of Public Prosecutions [2015] EWHC 4111 (Admin) (08 December 2015)

There is no double jeopardy as the Russian conviction concerned an attempted bribe (Canbaikal) while the UK investigation concerns a separate, completed bribe (Vostok); there is no significant factual overlap. The delay in the investigation is not exceptional or oppressive, and is due to the claimant's absence from the UK, not prosecutorial inaction. Judicial review is not warranted.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 4111 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Kotova; First Defendant: Director of Public Prosecutions; Second Defendant: Commissioner of Police the City of London
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Double Jeopardy, Prosecutorial Discretion, Delay in Investigation, Costs
Criminal Law Judicial Review Public Law Double Jeopardy Prosecutorial Discretion Delay in Investigation Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kotova

Claimant

Director of Public Prosecutions

First Defendant

Commissioner of Police the City of London

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the continuation of the UK investigation against the claimant constitutes double jeopardy
  2. 2 Whether the delay in the UK investigation is oppressive and warrants judicial intervention

Ratio Decidendi

There is no double jeopardy as the Russian conviction concerned an attempted bribe (Canbaikal) while the UK investigation concerns a separate, completed bribe (Vostok); there is no significant factual overlap. The delay in the investigation is not exceptional or oppressive, and is due to the claimant's absence from the UK, not prosecutorial inaction. Judicial review is not warranted.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Defendants awarded their costs in entirety, subject to detailed assessment