Targeted Protection of Third-Party Intervention in Criminal Proceedings: Jurisprudential Foundations and a Comparative Study of French Law and the Law of England and Wales

Abstract

Third-party intervention in criminal proceedings lies at the intersection of individual rights, the efficiency of criminal justice, the personal nature of criminal consequences, and the requirements of a fair trial. In many criminal cases, judicial decisions concerning seizure, confiscation, restitution, sale, destruction of property, or access to data and documents may directly affect persons who are neither accused, complainants, nor direct victims of the offense. The central issue of this study is whether Iranian criminal procedure can recognize an independent but limited procedural status for an “interested third party.” Using a descriptive-analytical method and a comparative approach, the study first examines the jurisprudential foundations of such protection through the rules of dominion over property, no harm, prohibition of unjust appropriation, respect for legitimate property, and the principle of hearing a legally relevant claim. It then analyzes the fragmented position of third parties under Iranian law, particularly in relation to property, security, and enforcement measures. The study subsequently compares the French model, in which victims may obtain an active procedural position through Action Civile and Constitution de Partie Civile, with the law of England and Wales, where third-party protection is generally issue-specific and concentrated in areas such as disclosure, restraint, confiscation, and financial enforcement. The findings indicate that neither model can be transplanted wholesale into Iranian law. A suitable Iranian framework should combine the French experience of formal procedural recognition with the targeted and proportionate approach of England and Wales. Accordingly, an interested third party should be defined by the “direct effect of a criminal decision on a legitimate right or interest” and should, within that limited scope, enjoy procedural guarantees including notice, the right to be heard, submission of evidence, legal representation, proportionate access to relevant case materials, a reasoned judicial decision, and an appropriate right of challenge.