The principle passive personal competence, as one of the principles of jurisdiction governing criminal law applies when a crime is committed against a citizen outside the territory of a country. In this paper, with using of descriptive-analytical and library methods and by study and adaptation around the principle of passive personal jurisdiction in the criminal law of Iran and the United Kingdom and by looking at international documents, the following results have been obtained: firstly, in Iranian criminal law, the principle of passive personal jurisdiction is accepted for all crimes in accordance with the conditions and arrangements, but in British criminal law, it is accepted just for only some very important crimes, including hostage-taking and various aspects of terrorism, such as murder, Kidnapping, the use of explosives. Secondly, there are differences in the criminal law of Iran and the United Kingdom based on the terms of the conditions for the realization of this principle. Such as, in Iranian criminal law, the conditions of No previous consideration and non-implementation of double punishment in case of some crimes such as Qesas, Diat and Tazir are not accepted by the legislator, and However, in British criminal law, these conditions apply to all offenses under this principle. Thirdly, the condition of trial in absentia in the application of this principle is not accepted in the laws of both countries. Therefore, in terms of the application of this principle, the position of the UK criminal justice system is more in line with international instruments.