Samantha Grant v Governor General

[2025] NZSC 146

NOTE: HIGH COURT ORDER IN [2024] NZHC 2606 PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF CONTENTS OF PROPOSED CHARGING DOCUMENT UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT REMAINS IN FORCE.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

 SC 115/2025
 [2025] NZSC 146

BETWEEN	SAMANTHA JANE GRANT Applicant
AND	GOVERNOR-GENERAL Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Ellen France and Miller JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person P J Gunn for Respondent
Judgment:	22 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A        The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B        There is no order as to costs.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

1. The High Court struck out Ms Grant’s application for judicial review as a plain abuse of process under r 5.35B of the High Court Rules 2016.[1]  The Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal from that decision.[2]  She now seeks leave to appeal to this Court.

   [1]Grant v Governor-General [2024] NZHC 2606 (Isac J) [HC judgment].

   [2]Grant v Governor-General [2025] NZCA 414 (Woolford, Dunningham and Walker JJ) [CA judgment].

2. The application for judicial review concerned District Court decisions directing (under s 26(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011) that Ms Grant’s charging document not be accepted for filing on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to justify a trial and the proposed prosecution was otherwise an abuse of process.

3. The proposed prosecution was against the Governor-General in respect of numerous alleged failings of state agencies in their dealings with Ms Grant.  Those agencies include New Zealand Police | Ngā Pirihimana o Aotearoa, the Ministry of Justice | Te Tāhū o te Ture and Ara Poutama Aotearoa | the Department of Corrections.  She says, among other things, that she was the victim of negligence.  She wishes to clear her name, have her rights vindicated, and obtain compensation and a letter of apology.

4. In the High Court, Isac J found there was no identifiable ground of review and it was not open to Ms Grant to prosecute the Governor-General in a representative capacity.[3]  Further, the District Court Judge was correct that the supporting papers did not meet the test of evidential sufficiency.[4]  And lastly, it appeared Ms Grant was trying to relitigate in a criminal proceeding claims that had previously been made in civil proceedings and struck out.[5]

   [3]HC judgment, above n 1, at [16]–[17].

   [4]At [18].

   [5]At [9] and [19].

5. The Court of Appeal agreed.[6]  The Court observed that Ms Grant continued to misapprehend the role of the Governor-General and sought to relitigate failed civil proceedings by combining them into a single criminal one.  She had failed to identify a justiciable claim.

   [6]CA judgment, above n 2, at [11]–[12] and [15].

6. The proposed appeal to this Court exhibits the same difficulties.[7]  We acknowledge Ms Grant’s sense of grievance, but it is plain that she is relitigating past civil claims and/or pursuing actions that cannot be the subject of a prosecution against the Governor-General in her official capacity.  The remedies Ms Grant wants from this Court are all civil in nature.  In the circumstances, we are not persuaded that the proposed appeal raises any question of general or public importance justifying an appeal to this Court, nor is there an apparent miscarriage of justice.[8]

   [7]The applicant in this Court purports to substitute the Solicitor-General and Attorney-General as respondents on behalf of various ministers and organisations.  That course would not alter the fundamental problems identified with the pleading: see Grant v Governor‑General [2025] NZSC 128 (Ellen France J) at [11].

   [8]Senior Courts Act 2016, s 74(2)(a) and (b).

7. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.  As the respondent has played no part in the proposed appeal, there is no order as to costs.

Solicitors:
Te Tari Ture o te Karauna | Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent