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 breach of s 9 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA), and is degrading and disproportionately severe punishment;

(f)she has been arbitrarily detained in breach of s 22 of NZBORA; and

(g)she has been abused by the protected person physically, psychologically and emotionally.

Habeas Corpus – legal principles

[10]      An application for a writ of habeas corpus is an application to challenge the legality of a person’s detention. It is made under s 6 of the Act.

[11]      If a respondent/defendant fails to establish that the detention of the applicant is lawful, the High Court must grant, as a matter of right, a writ of habeas corpus ordering the release of the detained person from detention.2 If granted, the High Court’s writ of habeas corpus commands the respondent, or other person in whose custody the person is alleged to be detained, to immediately release the named person from custody.

[12]      A Court’s enquiry on an application for habeas corpus needs to be focused on whether the applicant is being unlawfully detained. The onus is on the respondent to justify the detention, but the existence of a warrant of detention has an important effect. The Court of Appeal in Bennett v Superintendent Rimutaka Prison said:3

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

2      Habeas Corpus Act 2001, s 14(1).

3      Bennett v Superintendent Rimutaka Prison [2002] 1 NZLR 616 (CA) at [70].

documentation did not in fact provide a lawful justification in the particular circumstances.

[13]      In addition, an application for habeas corpus is not a means to call into question a ruling as to bail by a Court of competent jurisdiction as s 14(2)(b) of the Act provides. Instead, in cases relating to bail, an applicant may challenge his or her bail conditions under the Bail Act 2000.4

[14]      A Court may also decide to refuse an application for habeas corpus if that application is not the best procedure for considering the application itself. This is provided for in s 14(1A)(b).

[15]      In Hyslop v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections, Dunningham J in this Court observed that where the respondent can produce a proper warrant of detention for an applicant, there will be little scope to argue that the person’s detention is not lawfully justified:5

The focus of this Court’s inquiry on an application for habeas corpus is whether the applicant is being unlawfully detained. The onus is on the respondent to justify the detention, but the existence of a warrant of detention has an important effect.

In Bennett v Superintendent Rimutaka Prison, the Court of Appeal said:

In practice, once a 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.

Analysis

[16]      As to the first question to be determined whether or not Ms Grant is lawfully detained here, she has been remanded in custody to Christchurch Women’s Prison having been declined bail by Judge Rielly in the District Court on 16 October 2025. It is clear she is plainly detained.

4      Nottingham v Adern & Ors [2020] NZCA 144.

5      Hyslop v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2021] NZHC 2719 at [6].

[17]      As to the question whether or not this detention is lawful, before the Court is the Warrant of Detention itself from the Nelson District Court dated 16 October 2025 indicating the outcome of the District Court Judge’s decision.

[18]      Accordingly, it is clear that s 14(2)(b) of the Act applies and precludes a Judge from calling into question this ruling as to bail for Ms Grant. The District Court is clearly a “Court of competent jurisdiction” for the purposes of the Act.

[19]      This being the case, I am satisfied that the present application must be refused under s 14(1A)(b) of the Act. This is on the basis that “an application for a writ of habeas corpus is not the appropriate procedure for considering the allegations made by the applicant”.

[20]      Ms Grant, however, does have a possible remedy available to her given that a challenge to her present detention is one that could be made pursuant to the Bail Act.

[21]      Clearly there is an available pathway for Ms Grant to challenge the decisions of the District Court made regarding bail, despite her comment before me that this approach might be unlikely to succeed given an earlier EM bail, she says she made, that had been refused. That is a matter however, properly considered in a separate bail proceeding.

[22]      It follows therefore that this matter is not an appropriate one for determination by way of an application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus.  I conclude that   Ms Grant is lawfully detained pursuant to the detention warrant issued by the District Court, and any challenge she has should be by way of an appeal against that District Court decision in which bail was declined. This is not the appropriate forum to determine a preliminary question relating to bail, and s 14(2)(b) of the Act specifically precludes this.

Result

[23]      For all these reasons, I am satisfied that the warrant issued to detain Ms Grant on 16 October 2025 is a complete answer to her application for a writ of habeas corpus.

[24]      Given that conclusion, I decline to issue the writ of habeas corpus she seeks. Ms Grant’s application is dismissed.

Gendall J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Christchurch cc:     S J Grant