The Quarterly Journal of Judicial Law Views

The Quarterly Journal of Judicial Law Views

Effects of public interest in criminal procedure and its challenge to individual rights

Authors
Mahdi Sheidaeian
Seyyed Jafar Es-haghi
Farabi Campus - University of Tehran
Abstract
Criminal procedure is an obvious area for conflict of public interest and individual rights and as being codified for securing public interest, it advocates individual rights. In three main areas of criminal process, institutions and the regulations governing them are formed under the effect of the concept of public interest. Regulations like competencies and dictums on criminal securement, institutions like public prosecutor’s office and the models of criminal process are justified based on this concept. On the opposite side, it guarantees some of procedural and substantive rights like the right to be supposed innocent (acquittance principle), the right to be heard and take action freely and privacy. Surveying illustratively competing of individual rights with public interest, this paper claims that Iranian lawmaker in new law on criminal procedure, in the position of resolving this competing takes a big step to safeguarding basic citizenship rights and recognizing public interest in safeguarding individual rights not limiting it. 
Keywords
Criminal Procedure
public interest
individual rights
Criminal Process
Prosecution Service
32. Anthony, G. (2011). “The Public Interest and Prosecutions”. pp. 1-8, Available at: https://amnesties-prosecution-public-interest.co.uk/themainevent/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/The-Public-Interest-and-Prosecutions.pdf
33. Banchuk, A. & Taylor, G. (2013). “Prosecution vs. Prokuratura: the European experience concerning the title of prosecuting services”. Available at: http://pravo.org.ua/en/news/20871123-prosecution-vs.-prokuratura-the-european-experience-concerning-the-title-of-prosecuting-services
34. Sadeleer, N. D. & Roller, G. & Dross, M. (2002). “Access to Justice in Environmental Matters”. Final Report. ENV.A.3/ETU/2002/0030.
35. Diggs, B. J. (1973). “The common good as reason for political action”. Ethics. Vol. 83, No. 4, pp. 283-293.
36. Packer, H. L. (1964). “TWO MODELS OF THE CRIMINAL PROCESS”. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW. Vol 113. No. 1. pp 1-68.
37. Pal, L. A. & Maxwell, J. (2004). “Assessing the Public Interest in the 21st Century: A Framework, a paper prepared for the External Advisory Committee on Smart Regulation”. Canadian Policy Research Networks Inc. Available at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/251889900_Assessing_the_Public_Interest_in_the_21st_Century_A_Framework