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…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Kimura and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZHC 2941
Decision Date: 7 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Te Aroha Carol Kimura sought to file documents with the High Court seeking relief from the Court. The documents, which were partly handwritten and partly typed, referred to various statutes and Acts, and appeared to seek a writ of habeas corpus. The application was made despite the fact that the applicant had no current proceedings before the Court and the reference number provided was a District Court number. The documents did not make sense, and contained references to pseudo-legal concepts and extensive Latin quotations. The Deputy Registrar directed the applicant to amend the documents to explain clearly what she was seeking. When the applicant re-filed essentially the same documents, the Deputy Registrar referred the matter to the Court for consideration of whether the proceedings should be struck out as plainly abusive. The Court found that the application was plainly abusive as the documents were incomprehensible and contained pseudo-legal concepts. The Court also found that it had no jurisdiction to hear an application for a writ of habeas corpus in those circumstances, as it could not re-open underlying processes that lead to the creation of a warrant of commitment, nor enquire into the claim of wrongful conviction or review the sentence imposed. The Court struck out the proceedings. The Court also noted that the applicant has a right to appeal against this decision.

Orders