GRANT v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2020] NZHC 2944 [6 November 2020]

GRANT v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2020] NZHC 2944[6 November 2020]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDNELSON REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAWHAKATŪ ROHECIV-2020-442-54[2020] NZHC 2944UNDER the Habeas Corpus Act 2001BETWEEN SAMANTHA JANE GRANTApplicantAND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THEDEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSRespondentHearing: 6 November 2020Appearances: S J Grant in personM J McKillop for the CrownJudgment: 6 November 2020JUDGMENT OF COOKE J[1] By application dated 3 November 2020 Ms Grant applies for a writ of habeascorpus. The application was intituled in both the District Court and the High Court,and includes and application for bail.[2] Because of the way it was intituled, it was not immediately apparent to registrystaff that it was an application for habeas corpus. When that was identified an urgenttelephone hearing was scheduled before me this afternoon in accordance with theHabeas Corpus Act 2001 which occurred at 4 pm.[3] For the purpose of the hearing Mr McKillop was able to provide the Court witha brief outline of the bail hearings that have occurred before the District Court inrelation to the charges that Ms Grant has faced, and he provided a warrant for detentiondated 15 October 2020 signed by Judge Riley remanding Ms Grant in custody until14 January 2021. Mr McKillop noted that there had been an earlier decision by JudgeZohrab declining Ms Grant bail.1[4] Section 14(2)(b) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 provides:(2) A Judge dealing with an application must enquire into the matters offact and law claimed to justify the detention and is not confined in thatenquiry to the correction of jurisdictional errors; but this subsectiondoes not entitle a Judge to call into question—(b) a ruling as to bail by a court of competent jurisdiction.[5] In Bennett v Superintendent Rimutaka Prison the Court of Appeal said:2[70] In practice, once a prison superintendent or other official named asrespondent produces a committal warrant or other authorisation it wouldthen be necessary for an applicant for habeas corpus to demonstrate that thedocumentation did not in fact provide a lawful justification in the particularcircumstances. [6] At the hearing I put to Ms Grant the effect of s 14(2)(b). She indicated inresponse that many of the charges that have been brought against her had beenwithdrawn. She accepted, however, that three of the charges in the current warrant fordetention were still being pursued. She also accepted that she is currently detained asa consequence of bail decisions made by the District Court.[7] Whilst Ms Grant contended that some of the charges which are listed in thewarrant of detention are no longer being pursued, that does not mean that the warrantis not a lawful warrant for detention issued by the District Court.[8] Ms Grant's other argument went to the substance of the allegations against her,and the unfairness of the matters as she perceives it. She also submitted that thecharges duplicated the allegations against her. All of the matters that she raised in theconnection are matters that can be raised on a bail application. To the extent that they1 Police v Grant [2020] NZDC 20720.2 Bennett v Superintendent Rimutaka Prison [2002] 1 NZLR 616 (CA), see also Warahi v ChiefExecutive of the Department of Corrections [2020] NZCA 585 at 9–10.have not already been addressed by the District Court she has the right to pursue thefurther application which she has filed for EM bail which I understand was filed on3 November 2020 but has not yet been scheduled for the District Court.[9] Nevertheless given the effect of s 14(2)(b), and the warrant for detentionproduced to me, the writ of habeas corpus is dismissed.Cooke JSolicitors:Crown Law, Wellington for the Respondentcc: Ms Grant