Challenger alleges she can't find lawyer to help with 'too complicated' case
New Zealand’s Supreme Court has refused permission to appeal requested by an applicant alleging negligence and other failings on the part of state agencies, including the Ministry of Justice, the courts, the New Zealand police, and the Department of Corrections.
In the proposed private prosecution against the governor‑general, the applicant alleged that the agencies’ actions caused her psychological, physical, emotional, and financial hardship and amounted to torture. She sought compensation, a vindication of her rights, and an apology letter.
The Nelson District Court rejected the applicant’s charging document for filing under s 26(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. Judge Zohrab found that:
The applicant applied for judicial review.
The Wellington High Court struck out the judicial review application as plainly abusive of the process under r 5.35B(2)(a) of the High Court Rules 2016. Judge Isac found that the claim listed no review grounds and mostly repeated the charging document’s text.
Representing herself, the applicant appealed. In her 19 September 2024 notice of appeal, she stated that she could not obtain a lawyer, as the case was too complicated and no lawyer would know how to prepare the charging document she wanted.
Last Aug. 20, Grant v Governor-General, [2025] NZCA 414, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand dismissed the appeal. The appeal court held that the High Court’s and District Court’s problems with the evidence remained.
The appeal court determined that the applicant:
The appeal court added that the applicant submitted a charging document that did not meet the requirements of s 17 of the Criminal Procedure Act and made complaints that did not fall within the scope of the Crimes of Torture Act 1989.
The applicant asked for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
On Oct. 22, in Grant v Governor General, [2025] NZSC 146, the Supreme Court of New Zealand dismissed the application for leave to appeal and made no cost order. The Supreme Court ruled that the proposed appeal displayed the same deficiencies as those observed in the prior proceedings.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that the applicant felt aggrieved. However, the Supreme Court pointed out that the applicant alleged no miscarriage of justice and no question of general or public importance that would justify an appeal.
The Supreme Court added that the applicant was clearly relitigating previous civil claims, seeking civil remedies, and pursuing matters that she could not have prosecuted against the governor-general in her official capacity.
