Key Takeaways
- A 21-year-old man, Nanedo, was involved in a car accident while driving under the influence, causing injuries to his passengers and another driver.
- Nanedo’s blood alcohol level was more than twice the legal limit, and he pleaded guilty to three charges of drink-driving causing injury and one of driving while forbidden.
- The sentencing judge ordered Nanedo to serve one and a half months of community detention, pay $5000 in reparation, and be disqualified from driving for 12 months.
- Nanedo appealed the sentence, arguing that a conviction could lead to his deportation to Ghana, where he would not be able to receive proper treatment for his ADHD.
- The appeal was dismissed, with the judge finding that the sentencing judge was correct in her decision and that the argument about deportation was speculative.
Introduction to the Case
The case of Nanedo, a 21-year-old man, is a disturbing example of the dangers of driving under the influence. In April 2023, Nanedo’s car crashed into another vehicle, causing a chain reaction of collisions that involved a total of five cars. Two of Nanedo’s passengers were seriously injured, with one suffering a cracked spleen and laceration to his arm, and the other experiencing multiple rib fractures, a collapsed lung, and a concussion. The driver of the first car that was hit also suffered a broken nose. Nanedo himself was taken to hospital, where his blood was tested and found to have a reading of 102mg of alcohol per 100mm of blood, more than twice the legal limit.
The Sentencing Decision
Nanedo pleaded guilty to three charges of drink-driving causing injury and one of driving while forbidden. However, his sentencing was delayed until August 2025. During the sentencing hearing, Nanedo’s lawyer argued that he should receive a discharge without conviction, citing the potential consequences of a conviction, including deportation to Ghana. The sentencing judge considered Nanedo’s willingness to attend restorative justice, his clean criminal and traffic history in New Zealand, and the fact that he had ADHD. However, she ultimately decided that the consequences of a conviction were not out of proportion to the gravity of the offending and sentenced Nanedo to one and a half months of community detention, ordered a $5000 reparation payment, and disqualified him from driving for 12 months.
The Appeal
Nanedo appealed the sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge had failed to take into account the potential consequences of a conviction, including his deportation to Ghana. He claimed that if he were to be deported, he would not be able to receive proper treatment for his ADHD, and that his family would also be affected. Nanedo’s lawyer argued that the sentencing judge had erred in not allowing an adjournment for Nanedo to complete a rehabilitation programme. However, the appeal judge, Justice Venning, found that this argument was "misconceived", noting that Nanedo had ample time to attend whatever courses he considered would assist him before his sentencing in August 2025.
The Appeal Decision
Justice Venning also found that the argument about deportation was speculative, and that the only evidence on the matter was a report from an immigration advisor, who said it was very likely Nanedo would receive a deportation liability notice. However, the judge noted that Nanedo would have a right of appeal on humanitarian grounds if this were to happen, and that the advisor had considered it likely Nanedo’s circumstances would mean deportation would be judged unjust or unduly harsh. The judge ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge was correct in her decision. The decision highlights the importance of considering the potential consequences of a conviction, but also the need for offenders to take responsibility for their actions and to prioritize the safety and well-being of others.
Conclusion
The case of Nanedo serves as a reminder of the dangers of driving under the influence and the importance of taking responsibility for one’s actions. While Nanedo’s circumstances, including his ADHD and the potential consequences of a conviction, were taken into account during the sentencing hearing, the sentencing judge ultimately decided that the consequences of a conviction were not out of proportion to the gravity of the offending. The appeal decision highlights the need for offenders to prioritize the safety and well-being of others and to take responsibility for their actions, while also considering the potential consequences of a conviction.
