Grant v The Ministry of Justice

[2023] NZHC 2818

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHAKATŪ ROHE

CIV-2023-442-42

[2023] NZHC 2818

UNDER

the Habeas Corpus Act 2001

IN THE MATTER

of an application for a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum

BETWEEN

SAMANTHA JANE GRANT

Applicant

AND

THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE

Respondent

Hearing:

9 October 2023

Counsel:

Applicant in Person

P Gunn for Respondent

Judgment:

9 October 2023

JUDGMENT OF ISAC J

[Application for writ of habeas corpus]

[1]                 In the afternoon of Friday, 6 October 2023, the applicant, Ms Samantha Grant, filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus. The matter was referred to me that day as duty judge and I directed an urgent hearing should be set down at 9 am on Monday, 9 October 2023.

[2]Ms Grant’s application at [1] records:

The Applicant is not detained in custody.

[3]                 At the hearing this morning Ms Grant confirmed she is not detained by the respondent or any other person or agency. She advised that her concern is that she is subject to orders of the Family Court preventing her from having contact with her

GRANT v THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE [2023] NZHC 2818 [9 October 2023]

daughter, and that if she breaches those orders she may be arrested and charged. It is the threat of a detention arising from those circumstances that have prompted her to file the current application. She submits that “the law must change” so that she is no longer at risk of such a threat.

[4]                 Section 6 of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 provides that an application to challenge the legality of a person’s detention may be made by an application for a writ of habeas corpus. It is a pre-requisite of the writ that the applicant is in detention.1 As Ms Grant confirms, there is no restriction on her liberty and her application must be dismissed accordingly.

[5]                 The easy solution for Ms Grant to avoid the threat of detention she is worried about is to comply with the orders she is subject to. It is not appropriate to seek to set aside those orders indirectly through the current proceeding.

[6]                 I record that the current proceeding is totally without merit in terms of ss 166 and 167 of the Senior Courts Act 2016.

Isac J

Solicitors:
Crown Law, Wellington for Respondent

1      Grant v Minister of Justice [2021] NZHC 740 at [9].