R v Karauria - [2018] NZHC 1184

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CRI 2017-020-003874

[2018] NZHC 1184

THE QUEEN

v

SHAUN LIAM KARAURIA

Hearing: 24 May 2018

Counsel:

S B Manning and C Stuart for Crown E J Forster for Defendant

Sentence:

24 May 2018

SENTENCE OF SIMON FRANCE J

[1] Mr Karauria, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to the murder of Sandeep Dhiman. The facts are that you, allegedly working with others, hatched a plan over some days to steal a car. Mr Dhiman, your victim, was befriended and effectively set up.

[2] On the day in question Mr Dhiman was directed to drive to a remote area, and then he got out of the car with you. You walked some distance. Out of sight you attacked him with a knife, stabbing him nine times. One of those stab wounds would prove fatal, but not immediately so. The victim managed to stagger back to the road, where he collapsed.

R v KARAURIA [2018] NZHC 1184 [24 May 2018]

[3] At that point, you launched another attack on him with stomps to the face and head. The clear purpose was to make sure he was dead. As you then drove off in his car, a companion mentioned the victim had moved. So, you again returned and repeated the attack. Mr Dhiman was left where he lay. He was found 12 hours later.

[4] I think everyone who hears these facts will be struggling to believe them. Planning to steal a car is one thing, but literally planning, as you did, to kill the person as well is so callous and unnecessary as to defy belief. You had no grudge against him, no reason to do that. And then on the day, as I have described, you carried it out with such terrible determination.

[5] The victim’s family are devastated. For now, their lives seemed ruined as they struggle to understand why this happened, why you would do that to their beloved son. I have read three heartfelt victim impact statements and have seen the family’s pain and anger. There is no forgiveness in them at this point, Mr Karauria. They are very angry at you, and why wouldn’t they be? They have lost their son and brother who came to New Zealand to study. The events have caused financial hardship, but for them that is little compared to the pain and loss they feel.

[6] I spoke earlier of how hard it is to understand why you did this. The sense of disbelief I mentioned is increased when I observe you are only 17 years of age. Too young to be living the life you were, too young to be able to plan and carry out such a horrible act. And yet here you are, at 17, facing as you know, a sentence of life imprisonment. How much of that sentence you will actually spend in jail is yet to be decided, but…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Karauria

Details

AGLC: R v Karauria [2018] NZHC 1184
Case: [2018] NZHC 1184
Decision Date: 24 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand heard the case of The Queen versus Shaun Liam Karauria, who pleaded guilty to the murder of Sandeep Dhiman. Karauria, along with others, had planned to steal a car from Dhiman. They lured him to a remote area, where Karauria stabbed him nine times, causing his death. The court had to decide on the appropriate sentence for Karauria, considering the brutality of the crime and his age at the time of the offence. Karauria was 17 years old, which influenced the court’s consideration of his culpability and the potential for rehabilitation.

The court acknowledged the significant mitigating factors, including Karauria’s young age, unstable upbringing, mental health issues, and lack of formal education. These factors, combined with his early guilty plea and cooperation with authorities, played a crucial role in determining the sentence. Despite these mitigating factors, the court emphasised the gravity of the crime, which involved premeditation and extreme violence. The court was required to balance these considerations with the need for public protection and deterrence.

Simon France J sentenced Karauria to life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 12 years. The judge considered the brutal and planned nature of the crime, reducing the initial 17-year starting point by five years to reflect Karauria’s age and mitigating circumstances. The court also imposed a concurrent sentence of three years for the charge of aggravated robbery. The sentence aims to provide protection to the community while considering the potential for rehabilitation due to Karauria’s young age and circumstances.

Orders