Grant v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

[2020] NZHC 2944

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHAKATŪ ROHE

CIV-2020-442-54

[2020] NZHC 2944

UNDER

the Habeas Corpus Act 2001

BETWEEN

SAMANTHA JANE GRANT

Applicant

AND

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Respondent

Hearing:

6 November 2020

Appearances:

S J Grant in person

M J McKillop for the Crown

Judgment:

6 November 2020

JUDGMENT OF COOKE J

[1]        By application dated 3 November 2020 Ms Grant applies for a writ of habeas corpus. The application was intituled in both the District Court and the High Court, and includes and application for bail.

[2]        Because of the way it was intituled, it was not immediately apparent to registry staff that it was an application for habeas corpus. When that was identified an urgent telephone hearing was scheduled before me this afternoon in accordance with the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 which occurred at 4 pm.

[3]        For the purpose of the hearing Mr McKillop was able to provide the Court with a brief outline of the bail hearings that have occurred before the District Court in relation to the charges that Ms Grant has faced, and he provided a warrant for detention dated 15 October 2020 signed by Judge Riley remanding Ms Grant in custody until

GRANT v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2020] NZHC 2944

[6 November 2020]

14 January 2021. Mr McKillop noted that there had been an earlier decision by Judge Zohrab declining Ms Grant bail.1

[4]Section 14(2)(b) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 provides:

…

(2)A Judge dealing with an application must enquire into the matters of  fact and law claimed to justify the detention and is not confined in that enquiry to the correction of jurisdictional errors; but this subsection does not entitle a Judge to call into question—

(b)      a ruling as to bail by a court of competent jurisdiction.

…

[5]In Bennett v Superintendent Rimutaka Prison the Court of Appeal said:2

[70] … In practice, once a prison superintendent or other official named as respondent produces a committal warrant or other authorisation … it would then be necessary for an applicant for habeas corpus to demonstrate that the documentation did not in fact provide a lawful justification in the particular circumstances. …

[6]        At the hearing I put to Ms Grant the effect of s 14(2)(b). She indicated in response that many of the charges that have been brought against her had been withdrawn. She accepted, however, that three of the charges in the current warrant for detention were still being pursued. She also accepted that she is currently detained as a consequence of bail decisions made by the District Court.

[7]        Whilst Ms Grant contended that some of the charges which are listed in the warrant of detention are no longer being pursued, that does not mean that the warrant is not a lawful warrant for detention issued by the District Court.

[8]        Ms Grant’s other argument went to the substance of the allegations against her, and the unfairness of the matters as she perceives it. She also submitted that the charges duplicated the allegations against her. All of the matters that she raised in the connection are matters that can be raised on a bail application. To the extent that they

1      Police v Grant [2020] NZDC 20720.

2      Bennett v Superintendent Rimutaka Prison [2002] 1 NZLR 616 (CA), see also Warahi v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2020] NZCA 585 at 9–10.

have not already been addressed by the District Court she has the right to pursue the further application which she has filed for EM bail which I understand was filed on  3 November 2020 but has not yet been scheduled for the District Court.

[9]        Nevertheless given the effect of s 14(2)(b), and the warrant for detention produced to me, the writ of habeas corpus is dismissed.

Cooke J

Solicitors:

Crown Law, Wellington for the Respondent cc:           Ms Grant