Kimura

[2025] NZHC 2941

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2025-485-710

[2025] NZHC 2941

BETWEEN

TE AROHA CAROL KIMURA

Applicant

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	Applicant in person
Judgment:	7 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

[1]    On 30 September 2025, the applicant filed a document at Court. The document was partly in handwriting and partly a printed notice of application referring to r 2.12 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2012.

[2]    The document referred to a matter number, CRI-2024-096-001568, which appears to be a District Court Criminal Proceeding.

[3]    A handwritten document and a copy of the applicant’s birth certificate was attached to the partly printed and partly handwritten document. The handwritten document referred to ss 32(1)(c) and 32(3) of the Land Transport Act 1998 and said it was “appearance for ancillary purposes”.

[4]    After setting out her own name on the document, the applicant also set out the words “NZ Police”.

APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS BY KIMURA [2025] NZHC 2941 [7 October 2025]

[5]    Other than the reference to “appearance for ancillary purposes High Court Rules 5.50” it was not clear what the application was about. There are no civil or criminal proceedings involving the applicant presently before the High Court.

[6]    The document itself did not make any sense and contained sovereign citizen pseudo-legal mumbo–jumbo with extensive Latin quotations.

[7]    On 30 September 2025, the Deputy Registrar wrote to the applicant returning the original documents. The Deputy Registrar directed the applicant to amend the documents to explain clearly what she was seeking. The letter also noted that the applicant had no current High Court proceedings and further, the reference number was a District Court number. The applicant was not permitted to combine both civil and criminal jurisdictions in the same proceeding.

[8]    On 3 October 2025, the applicant re-filed essentially the same documents. The Deputy Registrar referred to the documents to me under r 5.35A of the High Court Rules 2016 (HCR). Such a referral requires me to consider whether the proceedings should be struck out under r 5.35B of the HCR if I am satisfied that the proceeding is plainly an abuse of the process of the Court.

[9]    The lack of a valid cause of action or proceedings that are incomprehensible has been held by the Court to be plainly abusive.1

[10]   The Court may prevent misuse of its processes when a procedure being adopted would be manifestly unfair to another party or would otherwise bring the administration of justice into disrepute.2 The Court should consider if it would be manifestly unfair to the respondent that they be required to respond. The Court must also determine whether “right thinking people” would regard the Court as exercising very poor control of its processes if it were to allow the applicant’s document to be regarded as a proper document.

1      See Tranter v Manager Telstra Clear NZ Ltd [2022] NZHC 456 at [13]; O’Neill v Judiciary of Auckland High Court [2023] NZCA 153; and Smyth-Davoren v Parker [2018] NZHC 3034 at [7]-[8].

2      Boyd v Australia Federal Police [2023] NZHC 2358 at [4].

The document

[11]   The “notice of application” lists the applicant both as the applicant and defendant. Although it says that it is an “appearance for ancillary purposes”, r 5.50 of the HCR has no application. That rule relates to a defendant who does not oppose a plaintiff’s claim but who wishes to be heard on any ancillary matter including costs.

[12]   Although much of the documentation is completely incomprehensible, some words give a clue that the applicant appears to be applying for an order under the Habeas Corpus Act 2001. There is a notation that the applicant has been sentenced and is in custody and the applicant asks for an urgent hearing at the earliest possible date.

[13]   The handwritten-only document refers to a next hearing date of 25 September 2025 but there is no information about what Court is being referred to or what the matter relates to. There is a reference to the Criminal Procedure Rules and to the Summary Proceedings Act 1957.

[14]I will treat the matter as if it were an application for an order of habeas corpus.

Analysis

[15]   To the extent that the documents can be understood, it seems that the applicant is an inmate at Arohata Prison following conviction in the District Court.

[16]   It is clear that this Court has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus in those circumstances. In Hambly v Auckland South Correctional Facility, the Court said:3

…the Court in its habeas corpus jurisdiction is not able to re-open underlying processes, such as conviction and sentencing decisions, that lead to the creation of a warrant of commitment.

[17]   Similarly, the Court in Smith v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections said:4

3      Hambly v Auckland South Correctional Facility [2024] NZHC 909 at [10].

4      Smith v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2018] NZHC 2572 at [8].

I am not able to enquire, on application for a writ of habeas corpus, into the claim of wrongful conviction or to review the sentence imposed.

[18]   Therefore, even if the applicant was intending to lodge a claim under the Habeas Corpus Act, this Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain it.

[19]   If the applicant’s claim is something other than one under the Habeas Corpus Act, the pleadings are so incomprehensible as to amount to an abuse of the Court’s processes.

Outcome

[20]The proceedings are struck out under r 5.35B of the HCR.

[21]   As required by r 5.35B(3) of the HCR, I advise the applicant that she has a right to appeal against this decision.

Churchman J