KEY POINTS:
The identity of the woman believed to have left Hamilton Public Library with a 6-year-old at the centre of a custody battle has been made public.
Nikala J Taylor , known as "Ms T", yesterday had High Court orders taken out against her which stemmed from her role in the disappearance of Jayden Headley quashed by the Supreme Court.
However, the court ruled name suppression on Ms Taylor - who police say is on security camera footage of Jayden leaving the library - lapsed at 9am today.
Jayden has been missing since August 16, when he was allegedly kidnapped from the library. He is believed to be somewhere in Northland, in the care of his grandfather, Dick Headley.
In October, Jayden's father, Chris Jones, took out habeas corpus writs against six people, including Ms T and Jayden's mother Kay Skelton. The writs were intended to gain the release of a person from unlawful detention and Skelton was jailed indefinitely for contempt of court after refusing to disclose Jayden's whereabouts.
The Supreme Court yesterday rejected Skelton's appeal against the writ.
Mr Headley wrote to the Herald in October and said there was no way he would return Jayden to obtain the release of his daughter.
Delivering its ruling, Justice Anderson stressed that in the case of Skelton, the Supreme Court had not ruled on the issue of her imprisonment.
Outside court, Mr Jones said the habeas corpus case had been taken to make the women say where Jayden was and he was disappointed that had not yet happened.
"All we ever wanted was for her [Ms Taylor] to explain in an affidavit or to the court what happened to Jayden," Mr Jones said.
His lawyer, Thomas Sutcliffe, was more hopeful after the court's verdict and said name suppression being lifted on "Ms T" might help the hunt for Jayden.
"The fact people know who she is might jog their memories because she drives a very distinctive car."
Nikala Taylor's lawyer, Warren Pyke, told the court the habeas corpus writ was intended to compel the person who had control and custody of Jayden to present him to the court.
However, Ms Taylor had neither control nor custody of Jayden so could not comply with the writ.
Mr Sutcliffe countered that Mr Pyke's interpretation of the writ was narrow and Ms Taylor was part of a group which had knowledge of where Jayden was.
For Skelton, David Jones said her denial of knowledge of Jayden's whereabouts had previously not been believed by the court but there were no witnesses that she had control or custody of her son.
Justice Anderson reserved any decision on costs and said the Supreme Court would issue a written judgment shortly to explain its reasoning.
