GRANT v MINISTER OF JUSTICE [2021] NZHC 740
Because the applicant was not in current detention at the time of filing and s 6 of the Habeas Corpus Act requires current detention for such applications, the habeas corpus application was not maintainable and was dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] NZHC 740
- Parties
- Applicant: Samantha Jane Grant; Respondent: Minister of Justice
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 1 April 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Habeas Corpus Application / Application Dismissed on the Papers
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Detention, Jurisdiction, Collateral Attack on Conviction, Protection Orders, Application Admissibility
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Samantha Jane Grant
Applicant
Minister of Justice
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Habeas Corpus Application / Application Dismissed on the Papers
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an application for a writ of habeas corpus can be brought by a person not currently detained
- 2 Whether the filing constituted an impermissible collateral attack on prior convictions and a protection order
- 3 Whether the applicant sufficiently identified the detention to which the application related
Ratio Decidendi
Because the applicant was not in current detention at the time of filing and s 6 of the Habeas Corpus Act requires current detention for such applications, the habeas corpus application was not maintainable and was dismissed.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- Application for a writ of habeas corpus dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
GRANT v MINISTER OF JUSTICE [2021] NZHC 740 [1 April 2021]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDNELSON REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAWHAKATŪ ROHECIV-2021-442-014[2021] NZHC 740UNDER the Habeas Corpus Act 2011IN THE MATTER OF an application for a writ of habeas corpusBETWEEN SAMANTHA JANE GRANTApplicantAND MINISTER OF JUSTICERespondentOn the papers:Counsel: Applicant in PersonM McKillop and C Tocher for RespondentJudgment: 1 April 2021JUDGMENT OF JUSTICE CHURCHMAN[1] On 26 March 2021, the applicant filed in the High Court at Nelson a documentdescribed as "application for a writ of habeas corpus".[2] The document had been prepared by the applicant herself and was difficult tounderstand.[3] The application came before Grice J on 26 March 2021. Grice J issued aminute which noted that it appeared that the applicant was not presently detained andthat the application she had filed appeared in reality to be in the nature of an appealfrom a refusal to grant habeas corpus by Cooke J on 6 November 2020.[4] The applicant was directed to file a memorandum clarifying the nature of herapplication and to specify what present detention it related to.[5] The applicant filed a memorandum on 30 March 2021. It is incomprehensible.[6] The respondent filed a memorandum on 1 April 2021. That memorandumnoted that the applicant was not presently detained in custody and had in fact handdelivered the application to the Office of the Crown Solicitor at Nelson on 26 March2021.[7] The respondent's memorandum noted that the application appeared to be acollateral attack on a protection order that the applicant had been convicted ofbreaching. The memorandum also noted that the applicant had been convicted of threecounts of contravening a protection order and one count of wilful damage, and that anappeal in respect of these convictions was to be heard in the Nelson High Court on 28April 2021.Analysis[8] Section 6 of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 provides:An application to challenge the legality of a person's detention may be madeby an application for a writ of habeas corpus.[9] It is therefore a prerequisite to such a challenge that the applicant is indeeddetained. The applicant has not, in her memorandum filed on 30 March 2021 referredto any current detention, and it is clear that although she had in the past been detained,that detention was at an end.Outcome[10] Applications for writ of habeas corpus can only be considered where anapplicant is in fact currently detained at the time the application was made. As thereis no current detention, the Court is unable to consider the application.[11] Accordingly, it is dismissed.Churchman JSolicitors:Crown Law, Wellington for Respondentcc: S M Grant