Grant v Governor General

[2024] NZHC 3636

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2024-409-658

[2024] NZHC 3636

UNDER

the Habeas Corpus Act 2001

IN THE MATTER

Of an application for a writ of habeas corpus

BETWEEN

SAMANTHA JANE GRANT

Applicant

AND

THE GOVERNOR GENERAL on behalf of various respondents

Respondent

Hearing:	2 December 2024
Appearances:	Applicant in person (via AVL) W S Taffs for Respondent
Judgment:	2 December 2024

ORAL JUDGMENT OF EATON J

This judgment was delivered by me on …….. at ……… pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

GRANT v THE GOVERNOR GENERAL [2024] NZHC 3636 [2 December 2024]

Introduction

[1]    On 28 November 2024 Ms  Grant  filed  an  application  for  a  writ  of  habeas corpus in the Wellington High Court. She tells me this morning that it was provided to Corrections on 22 November, but 28 November is the date of filing. Because she is currently detained at Christchurch Women’s Prison, the proceeding was then transferred to this Court and referred to a duty Judge who directed that a hearing be held this morning. Ms Grant has appeared before me this morning via AVL from the Christchurch Women’s Prison. Mr Taffs has appeared on behalf of the respondent.

Prior applications

[2]    The current application is, on my count, Ms Grant’s fifth application for a writ of habeas corpus. Each of her previous applications have been unsuccessful. Three  of those applications were dismissed because she was in not fact detained. A fourth was dismissed because she was seeking to challenge bail rulings contrary to s 14(2)(b) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 (the Act).

Current application

[3]    The current application I have found difficult to comprehend. It raises a number of  grievances  associated  with  criminal  proceedings  brought  by  the  New Zealand Police against Ms Grant. The grounds raised is support of the writ of habeas corpus include that:

(a)the prosecutions against her are malicious;

(b)she has applied to discharge the protection order;

(c)she has filed (or attempted to file) a private prosecution that has not been actioned;

(d)she has been abused by the protected persons;

(e)she does not like being remanded in custody and does not want to be subject to electronically monitored (EM) bail;

(f)there have been no further breaches of the protection order since 2021.

[4]    Ms Grant asks this Court to discharge the order. She also refers in her written application and has raised in oral submissions this morning that she seeks a writ of “surcumdiem”. I am unfamiliar with what Ms Grant is referring to, but she describes it as a writ whereby those persons who are the protected persons in a protection order rather than her face arrest.

Applicant’s status

[5]    Ms Grant is currently facing eight charges of breaching a protection order in relation  to  three  separate  acts  of  alleged  offending  between  13  October  and  13 November 2024. I have reviewed the summaries of facts that outlines those allegations. She has pleaded not guilty to the first two sets of charges. She is yet to enter a plea to the third set of charges. She was bailed after both the first and second set of alleged offences.

[6]    But on 14 November 2024 she was remanded in custody following an alleged breach of bail and further offending. Ms Grant is presently remanded to appear in the Nelson District Court on 9 December 2024. The police file records that on that date she will advance an application for release on EM bail. The Court has ordered a report under s 38 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (CPMIP) addressing whether Ms Grant is unfit to stand trial and whether she is insane within the meaning in s 23 of the Crimes Act 1961.

Legality of current detention / legislation

[7]    Mr Taffs has produced the  warrant  issued  by  a  District  Court  Judge  on 18 November 2024 to detain Ms Grant in custody until Monday, 9 December 2024.

[8]    The warrant provides the lawful authority for Ms Grant’s detention.  In Hyslop v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections1 the High Court observed that where the respondent can produce a warrant of detention, there will be little scope to argue the person’s detention is not lawfully justified. In that case the Court said:

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

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.

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

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.

[10]   There can be little doubt that Ms Grant is seeking to use the writ process to challenge her remand status. This is prohibited by s 14(2)(b) of the Act which provides:

14       Determination of applications

…

(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.

[11]   Ms Grant should be aware that an application for a writ of habeas corpus cannot look behind a bail decision. I say that because her application for a writ in  November 2020 was dismissed by Cooke J as being prohibited by s 14(2)(b) 3.

[12]   I am also satisfied the current application falls within s 14(1A)(b) which provides:

(1A) Despite subsection (1), the High Court may refuse an application for the issue of the writ, without requiring the defendant to establish that the detention of the detained person is lawful, if the court is satisfied that—

…

2      Bennett v Superintendent Rimutaka Prison [2002] 1 NZLR 616 (CA) at [70], see also Warahi v Chief Executive of Department of Corrections [2022] NZCA 585 at [9]—[10].

3      Grant v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2020] NZHC 2944.

(b)an application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus is not   the appropriate procedure for considering the allegations made by the applicant.

[13]   An application for a writ of habeas corpus is not the appropriate procedure to deal with the wide-ranging grievances that are raised by Ms Grant. She has legal remedies available to her. That includes under the Bail Act and the Criminal Procedure Act. This morning she has also referred to what she describes as continuing breaches that have similarities to those that she raised in previous civil proceedings brought against the Department of Corrections. Ms Grant’s remedy is to pursue further action against the Department of Corrections.

[14]   But her remedies do not include the writ of habeas corpus. I strongly encourage Ms Grant to obtain legal advice in relation to these matters.

[15]   I am satisfied the respondent has established the legality of Ms Grant’s detention, but in any event, I am satisfied her application must be dismissed under    s 14(1A). Ms Grant needs to be aware that future similar applications that seek to challenge a bail decision will not be allocated an urgent hearing.

Result

[16]The application is dismissed.

...................................................

Eaton J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitors, Christchurch

Copy to: S J Grant