THIRD PARTY INTERVENTION IN CRIMINAL CASES

Criminal law encompasses the entire framework governing criminal behavior and individuals involved in such acts. It delineates the various offenses, the process of apprehending and trying suspects, and the imposition of penalties. A comprehensive comprehension of criminal procedural laws and evolving judicial precedents is essential in assessing the degree of external involvement. Within the realm of criminal law, anyone beyond the State, victim, and accused is regarded as a third party.

One intriguing question arises: Can strangers interfere in the investigation of a criminal case? Let’s delve into this topic. However, before delving into this discussion, another question emerges: who has the right and for what reasons to intervene in criminal litigation? Does this individual possess legal standing / Locus Standi? The term "locus Standi" itself appears to be somewhat alien.

What is Locus Standi?

Locus standi denotes an individual's legal eligibility to present their case before the court. It is a prerequisite for initiating any legal action or lawsuit. This entails demonstrating a direct connection to the law or action in question and the resulting harm, thereby justifying their involvement in the case. If the court determines that a person lack standing, their arguments may be dismissed without delving into the case's specifics. Although the concept has been somewhat diluted with the advent of Public Interest Litigation in recent times, its impact on the criminal law system remains minimal.

THE INVESTIGATION PROCESS OF A CRIMINAL CASE

Before understanding the criminal investigation in Pakistan, it is important to go through its definition. There are so many definitions of criminal investigation including the following:

?"A lawful search for people and things to reconstruct the circumstances of an illegal act, apprehend or determine 176 Pakistan Vision Vol. 10 No.2 the guilty party, and aid in the states prosecution of the offender."

(1). “The collection of information and evidence for identifying, apprehending, and convicting suspected offenders

(2)”. In an other definition is said that " Investigation" is a word confined to proceedings of Magistrates, and that "Inquiry" is the word appropriate to the proceedings of Magistrates prior to trial

Now if criminal investigation is being concluded the result would come out to ask the questions as given below: Who, What, Where, When, Why & How

The purpose of all these definitions and questions is to find out the guilt or make legal efforts to search out the truth through various sources adopted by law enforcement agency/police to produce and prove in the court of law.

In Pakistan, the criminal procedure is broadly categorized into three different stages, namely pre-trial, trial, and post-trial stages. Each stage requires different steps to be fulfilled which are provided in detail below.

• In pretrial Stage, the process of investigation begins with receipt of information about commission of a cognizable offence. The officer in charge of a police station to which such information has been submitted proceeds immediately to identify, locate and arrest the believed offender and to collect evidence of guilt. The chief methods relied on are interrogation, scientific forensic investigation and search. The Code of Criminal Procedure contains adequate authorization for arrest and search. Criminal investigations may also be commenced on the basis of reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence. Investigations should be completed as speedily as possible. After criminal investigation has been completed, an officer in charge submits a final report U/S 173 Cr.P.C to a magistrate having jurisdiction to try the matter.
• In Trial Stage after the submission of a challan (charge sheet) by the investigating officer, the court will frame charges against the accused based on the evidence presented in the challan. Following this, the prosecution and defense will present their respective evidence and arguments during the trial hearings. Witnesses are examined and cross-examined, and documentary evidence is submitted. Subsequently, the court will deliver its judgment, either acquitting or convicting the accused based on the evidence and legal principles. If convicted, sentencing will occur, and the accused may have the option to appeal the verdict in higher courts. Throughout these stages, adherence to due process and principles of fair trial is essential to ensure justice is served.
• In Post Trial Stage, the court determines the appropriate punishment for the convicted accused (if any). In determining a suitable sentence, the court will consider a few factors, including the nature and severity of the crime, the accused's criminal history, the accused's personal circumstances and the degree of remorse felt by the accused.

WHETHER A THIRD PARTY CAN INTERFERE IN THE INVESTIGATION OF A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING?

JUSTICE has a rich history of involvement in cases concerning the safeguarding of fundamental rights. Even predating the British courts' acceptance of third-party interventions in the mid-1990s, JUSTICE had already established itself as a participant in cases before the European Court of Human Rights. Third-party intervention in criminal litigation refers to the involvement of individuals, organizations, or entities not directly associated with the legal proceedings but having a vested interest in the outcome. The primary objective of our third-party interventions is to aid the courts by offering an impartial examination of the human rights principles and standards pertinent to a case, along with any relevant international and comparative human rights laws.

Becoming involved in the proceedings occurs when someone or an organization is directly impacted by the matter at hand. This isn't exactly intervention but rather an invitation extended to those affected without the involvement of a middleman. These individuals or groups, referred to as 'interested parties' (IPs), are brought into the process because they have a stake in the subject. If a claimant is aware of such an affected party, they must serve the claim form unless the court instructs otherwise.

Traditionally, no stranger has the right to interfere in the investigation of a criminal case as allowing this may create chaos and confusion by the sheer number of associations that a criminal act may bring forward. Discussion over the legality of intervention by a third party in the undergoing investigation of a criminal case has changed over time.

In Pakistan, where the criminal justice system is undergoing significant reforms, the issue of third-party interference raises pertinent questions regarding the integrity of the legal process and the protection of fundamental rights.

Where the State has a vested interest in the accused, have highlighted public distrust in the handling of prosecution by the State. Whereby the State shall ensure to take all necessary steps on behalf of the aggrieved party in criminal matters being the custodian of the social interests of the community at large.

In the late ‘90s, when the use of Public Interest Litigation was on the rise, PIL to be an alien concept in the criminal justice system. Though the third-party intervention during the investigation process of the criminal case was not allowed, PIL brought into the scenario instances where third parties can file revision criminal petitions against judicial order. After a decade, it iterated the settled position of third parties having no locus standi for intervention in the criminal trial.

• The Code of Criminal Procedure,1898 also makes it clear that strangers have no right to intervene during the investigation or at the appellate stage of a criminal trial. A person not associated with the offense has no right to appear before the court in which the concerning criminal proceeding is being held.
• This may be required when the victim is not able to look after her own interests or is keen to see that the perpetrator of the crime is brought to book. That apart, third-party intervention can also be possible in situations analogous to public interest litigation. This envisages a situation where crimes have been committed but the State machinery is reluctant to prosecute. In such cases public-spirited pleaders can intervene, with the permission of the court, and take up prosecution.
• The main reason behind third parties having no locus standi in criminal proceedings is that there would be a rampant increase in frivolous and vexatious litigation with no end and it might also affect negatively the rights of the accused. Moreover, if private parties are allowed to take the role of prosecution instead of the State, the chances of malicious prosecution may increase significantly.

THE RECENT TREND REGARDING THIRD-PARTY INTERVENTION IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS:

Recent times have witnessed a notable change in the involvement of third parties in criminal trials with the name and style of so-called HUMAN RIGHTS. Before delving into the legal advancements enabling outsiders to participate in such proceedings, it's essential to interpret the provisions (if any) permitting such intervention.

Under Section 492 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the State's representation in prosecutions, appeals, or any criminal proceedings is entrusted to the Public Prosecutor appointed for the case. If a private individual engages a lawyer to prosecute someone in court, that lawyer must operate under the guidance of the Public Prosecutor, with the possibility of presenting arguments with court permission & Co-ordination of Prosecution. Instances where altruistic lawyers are permitted to intervene in prosecutions typically involve scenarios where the victim lacks the means to protect their own interests or where there's apparent reluctance within the state apparatus to pursue prosecution.

In Pakistan, Courts, have criticized the intervention of third parties in subsequent judgments, to minimize the role of third parties in criminal cases.

Advocates for third-party intervention in criminal matters argue that a fundamental principle of the criminal justice system is that an offense against any individual is a transgression against society as a whole. Therefore, any person acting on behalf of society should have the right to seek justice. The integrity of justice is compromised when a guilty party evades punishment.

In my perspective, I disapprove of such interventions. The state, as the guardian of the rights of both victims and accused, should fulfill its duty to ensure justice. When someone intervenes in criminal proceedings, regardless of the reason, it reflects a lack of trust in the judicial system, prosecution, and the state. The failure of prosecution to act as a fair public servant and protector of the rights of both accused and victims while pursuing truth creates room for third-party interventions in criminal cases.

Third-party interventions in criminal cases, especially those claiming to champion human rights, can sometimes complicate matters rather than bring clarity or justice. Take, for instance, the Nazim Jokhio murder case. In such instances, the involvement of third parties, despite their noble intentions, can sometimes lead to politicization or sensationalization of the case. Instead of focusing solely on the pursuit of truth and justice, the attention may shift towards satisfying the agendas of these intervening parties.

This can undermine the impartiality of the legal process and detract from the primary goal of ensuring a fair trial for all involved parties. Furthermore, it may inadvertently add pressure on the prosecution and defense, potentially affecting their ability to present their cases effectively. Therefore, while third-party interventions may arise from genuine concerns for human rights, their impact on the criminal justice system must be critically examined to ensure that they do not hinder the pursuit of truth and justice.

FOREIGN CONTEXT:

In many countries, legal experts generally view court interventions in criminal cases and appeals as uncommon occurrences. The Supreme Court of Canada, for instance, has emphasized the need to restrict interventions in criminal proceedings. The Canadian criminal justice system typically permits third-party interventions only in exceptional circumstances, as the process of delivering justice involves careful consideration of various factors.

?In Vallentgoed, the Edmonton and Calgary Police Services (EPS / CPS) were denied leave to intervene in a criminal appeal by Justice Veldhuis. The appeal concerned the scope of the Crown’s obligation to disclose approved instrument (AI) maintenance logs. Approved instruments are instruments used to measure blood alcohol levels. The accused, Vallentgoed and Gubbins, were charged with impaired driving offenses and had requested additional disclosure of AI maintenance records.[1]

Vallentgoed initially presented starkly different visions of the intervener’s role in criminal proceedings. In Vallentgoed, Justice Veldhuis claims that intervener status should be rarely granted in criminal proceedings. She writes:

?“The discretion to grant intervener status should be exercised sparingly, particularly in criminal proceedings where the dispute must remain between the accused and the Crown: R v Neve, [1996] 8 WWR 294 at para 16, 184 AR 359 (CA). Interventions in criminal appeals are “generally shunned by the courts for a variety of policy and prudential reasons”, especially the risk “that the hearing of other voices can distort an appeal”: R v JLA, 2009 ABCA 324 at para 2, 464 AR 310. (para 6, emphasis added)”

?Two months later, Justice Berger acknowledges this perspective in Barton:

“Some judges have opined that it is very unusual for the court to consider interventions in criminal appeals. By way of illustration, Watson J.A. in R. v. J.L.A., 2009 ABCA 324 (an important precedent-setting criminal law pronouncement heard by a designated five person panel reported as R. v. Arcand, 2010 ABCA 363) explained that “the issue in such cases is between an individual and the state.” (para 5)”[2]

?But Justice Berger then rejects this approach:

?“I say, with great respect, that judges are too quick to shun intervention by a third party in a criminal case. Watson J.A. has observed “all necessary voices with proper standing will necessarily be heard through the traditional binary process” – but not always. In fact, I have a real concern that the focus on the risk that “the hearing of other voices can distort an appeal,” cited theoretically as a basis to reject the intervention of a party who is perceived to lend support to the Crown’s position, is then invoked far too frequently to deny the appropriate intervention of a party who might assist the court but whose submissions may also be helpful to the defendant in the case”. See, for example, R. v. J.L.A., supra. (para 10, emphasis added).

By suggesting that third party intervention in criminal cases is rarely appropriate, Justice Berger may have made it more difficult for parties affected by the outcome of a criminal case to intervene. While the State speaks with one voice, the community speaks with many. These voices should not be silenced in the courtroom.

?In recent times, courts in the United Kingdom have started to allow third-party interventions, primarily involving public bodies and NGOs. However, unlike in constitutional matters, private party interventions are permitted only when it is evident that the court's decision will significantly impact society or a specific section of it.

An illustrative case demonstrating the recognition of interveners' contributions occurred in a 2013 London court case involving Hughes Cousins-Chang. Chang, a 17-year-old, was arrested and detained overnight without access to his parents or an adult. Despite his age, he was treated as an adult. The Howard League on Penal Reform and the Coram Children's Legal Centre were granted permission to intervene, enabling them to present legal arguments regarding the rights of young individuals within the criminal justice system.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, while third-party interventions in criminal trials may occasionally offer valuable perspectives, the prevailing consensus suggests that they should be restricted or even barred altogether. The delicate balance of justice in criminal proceedings necessitates careful adjudication by the courts, unencumbered by external influences that may undermine the integrity of the process. While there may be instances where intervention is warranted, such as in cases with significant societal implications, the potential for undue interference and distortion of the legal process outweighs the benefits in most scenarios. Therefore, maintaining strict limitations on third-party interventions in criminal trials is crucial to upholding the principles of fairness, impartiality, and due process within the legal system.

[1] R v Vallentgoed,?2016 ABCA 19 (CanLII) ?(January 2016)?

[2] https://ablawg.ca/2016/06/08/should-the-dispute-remain-between-the-accused-and-the-crown-third- ??? party-intervention-in-criminal-proceedings/