Grant v Governor General - [2025] NZHC 3210

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2025-442-81 [2025] NZHC 3210

BETWEEN SAMANTHA JANE GRANT
Applicant
ANDGOVERNOR GENERAL ON BEHALF OF VARIOUS DEPARMENTS
Respondent

Hearing: 24 October 2025 Counsel (via VMR) Applicant in person
G J Barrett for Respondent

Judgment: 24 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

Introduction and background

[1] The applicant, Ms Grant, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus which was referred to me as Duty Judge this week. The hearing of this matter was then set down for a hearing before me today 24 October 2025 at 10 am.

[2] Ms Grant appeared for herself by VMR from Christchurch Women’s Prison. Ms Barrett appeared as counsel for the respondent.

[3] Essentially, Ms Grant says in her application that she is unlawfully detained and held at Christchurch Women’s Prison.

[4] The Habeas Corpus Act 2001 (the Act) provides that applications under the Act “must be given precedence over all other matters before the High Court unless a Judge

GRANT v GOVERNOR GENERAL [2025] NZHC 3210 [24 October 2025]

of that court considers that the circumstances require otherwise”.1 Given this precedence that such habeas corpus applications must be given, the hearing of this matter proceeded urgently today.

[5] Before the Court were the 20 October 2025 application itself from Ms Grant, submissions from counsel for the respondent dated 23 October 2025, a New Zealand Police summary of facts relating to Ms Grant’s alleged offending, and a copy of the 16 October 2025 District Court Judge’s AVL warrant to detain Ms Grant as a defendant.

[6] Ms Grant faces four charges of breaching a protection order, all said to have occurred on 29 August 2025. The allegation against Ms Grant is that she continues to breach this August 2020 protection order in particular against her former partner. It appears as well that at this point she has 12 previous convictions for breaching that protection order since 2020.

[7] So far as the present charges against Ms Grant are concerned, as I understand it, she has pleaded not guilty, and counsel for the respondent indicates she has elected trial by jury.

[8] Ms Grant was remanded in custody on 16 October 2025 after breaching her bail and, as I understand it, her next appearance is in the Nelson District Court on 8 December 2025.

[9] From her present application as best I can tell, Ms Grant raises a number of grievances regarding the current criminal proceedings against her, and her remand for breaching her bail. Distilling these, it appears that Ms Grant is contending that:

(a)the prosecutions against her are malicious;

(b)the two witnesses to her previous breaches of protection order committed perjury when giving evidence against her;

1 Habeas Corpus Act 2001, s 9(1).

(c)Ms Grant has entered previous guilty pleas due to duress;

(d)Ms Grant relies on freedom of speech as a defence to the charges against her;

(e)her remand in custody is in…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Grant v Governor General

Details

AGLC: Grant v Governor General [2025] NZHC 3210
Case: [2025] NZHC 3210
Decision Date: 24 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Grant v Governor General concerns an application by Samantha Jane Grant, who is currently detained at Christchurch Women's Prison, seeking a writ of habeas corpus to challenge the lawfulness of her detention. The matter was heard by Justice Gendall in the High Court of New Zealand, Wellington Registry. Ms Grant contends that her detention is unlawful, malicious, and a breach of her rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The court was required to determine whether the applicant's detention was lawful and if the application for a writ of habeas corpus was the appropriate procedure to challenge it.

The legal principles guiding the court's decision involved the application for a writ of habeas corpus, which is a challenge to the legality of a person's detention under the Habeas Corpus Act 2001. The onus was on the respondent to justify the detention, and once a warrant of detention was produced, it was necessary for the applicant to demonstrate that it did not provide a lawful justification. The court also noted that an application for habeas corpus was not the proper procedure to challenge a bail ruling by a Court of competent jurisdiction. The court had to assess whether the detention was lawful and if the application for habeas corpus was the appropriate procedure to challenge it.

In this case, the court found that Ms Grant was lawfully detained pursuant to the warrant issued by the District Court. The court held that the District Court was a Court of competent jurisdiction, and the application for habeas corpus was not the appropriate procedure to challenge the bail decision. The court concluded that any challenge to the detention should be made under the Bail Act 2000. Therefore, the court declined to issue the writ of habeas corpus and dismissed Ms Grant's application.

As a result of the court's decision, the writ of habeas corpus was not issued, and Ms Grant's application was dismissed. The court found that the warrant issued by the District Court was a complete answer to her application for a writ of habeas corpus, and any challenge to her detention should be made under the Bail Act 2000.

Orders