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 days in court like today are truly days of dismay:

(a)dismay at the completely needless loss of innocent life;

(b)dismay that a 17 year old amongst us has done it; and

(c)dismay that a 17 year old is being sentenced to life imprisonment. That is no doubt the correct sentence, but as a society we cannot take any comfort from it. Today in court is not the occasion to explore why these things happen and how we can try and prevent them, but they are a

reminder that we need to keep asking those questions, for the cost to us all of these things happening is terrible.

[7]    There is a process today I must follow. I am not going to spend time setting it out, but the steps I take are what the law requires me to do.

[8]    The law says I must sentence you to life imprisonment.1 There is a small window where sometimes life imprisonment is not imposed, but it does not exist for cases like these and so that will be the sentence.

[9]    A second job I am given is to decide how much time you must spend in jail before anyone can think about getting you back into the community. The shortest that can be here is 10 years.2 The longest is 17 years3 and what I say from here on is looking at that issue.

Starting point for minimum non-parole period

[10]   First, I need to assess the seriousness of the crime. That is a startling proposition, isn’t it, to ask about seriousness when confronted with these facts but the task is to assess where this case sits with other murders. The features that stand out are the brutality of the killing and your planning. I consider that, based on these aggravating features and looking at other cases, 17 years is the starting point.4 I accept there is an argument for a year or so more, but consider that level consistent with the cases cited.

Mitigation

[11]You have pleaded guilty early on and you will get credit for that.

[12]   The difficult issue is how much I reduce that 17 years to recognise the reality that at 17 years of age you are not a grown up, even if you think you are; and that

1      Sentencing Act 2002, s 102.

2      Section 103(2).

3      A figure reflecting the reality if s 104 of the Sentencing Act ultimately applies.

4      Sentencing Act 2002, s 104; R v Gosnell [2013] NZHC 1313; R v Lavemai [2014] NZHC 797; and

R v Rewha-Te Wara HC Hamilton CRI-2010-019-5681, 30 September 2011.

however it seems, the reality is that your upbringing and your young age have contributed significantly to you being here today. These things do not excuse what you did – nothing can excuse that, but I need to take a wider look at it all. The prosecution suggest a final figure of 15 years’; your lawyer suggests 12.

[13]   You are a 17 year old young Māori man born and raised in this area. At 11 your father died, and from then on there seems to have been little stability. You lived with your mother for a while but there was conflict with her new partner. You then moved between groups within the family before you went to Wairoa, briefly, and then to Taranaki to live with another family member. You say there you were frequently the victim of violence. You attended school but left early with no qualifications.

[14]   From there you returned to the Hawkes Bay but have lived only short periods with family members, or people you describe as your partners. There have been periods living on the street. Throughout this time, you have spent periods with your mother, and periods away. It seems you have not always been easy to have at home, and that accounts for your coming and going. However, you describe some of these periods as your best time, with a feeling of being loved.

[15]   Since your father died you have had mental health issues, mainly bouts with depression, but also not helped by a problem with alcohol. There have been thoughts of suicide, and it seems some failed attempts at that. There has been medication prescribed during this period but you haven’t been good at taking it.

[16]   All this history combines with your own natural make up to produce a somewhat complex person, even at age 17. You have mood swings which involve depression, anger, and at other times recurring self-harm. You are emotionally immature, and then on top of that you have an alcohol problem.

[17]   Reading all the reports and material has not really explained to me why it is that you did this. I could understand not thinking things through at the time but you clearly planned to kill this man. The reality is you just do not really have an understanding of what it truly means to kill someone. Obviously, you know what

death is, but your immaturity means you do not really understand everything that goes with that. You lack an ability to appreciate the dreadful impact of your conduct.

[18]   In terms of what recognition I give to all this, I see it as reducing significantly your culpability. That is not to say you are not responsible for what you did – a sentence of life imprisonment makes that plain, but despite your actions saying otherwise, you are not an adult. You do not think like one, you are not capable of thinking like one, and culpability is not to be assessed as if you are one.5

[19]   I would reduce the 17 years by three years’ for these factors, and then take another two years off for your early plea and full acceptance of responsibility. It is important to note that you handed yourself in to the Police the day after the killing. (Another witness had already done so.) You attended with your aunty and you brought with you the clothes and shoes you had been wearing. You then gave a full statement, and have been co-operative. These aspects are very relevant to the assessment of the discount and your prospects for the future. Overall, I consider 12 years to be the appropriate minimum non-parole term.

[20]   Section 104 of the Sentencing Act applies. The circumstances at the time of the killing make that plain; the killing was done to facilitate a crimes, and the death was planned. I reconsider 17 years would be manifestly unjust for the same reasons why I think that  the 17 year starting point  needs to be so significantly reduced.     Mr Karauria’s culpability is not the same as if he were an adult.

[21]   I see no need to adjust the 12 years upwards, and have thought about a shift the other way. However, the brutal and planned nature of the attack must be recognised. Something less than 12 years would not reflect the nature of the offence. I see nothing in the reports that says Mr Karauria cannot and will not grow up, and cannot be assisted to eventually live a different and better life. The sentence of life imprisonment provides adequate protection if that does not happen.

[22]   There is also a charge of aggravated robbery to which I will attach a sentence of three years’ imprisonment, to be served concurrently.

5      Churchward v R [2011] NZCA 531, (2011) 25 CRNZ 446 at [77].

Please stand.

[23]   On the charge of aggravated robbery of Mr Sandeep Dhiman, I sentence you to three years’ imprisonment.

[24]   On the charge of murdering Mr Dhiman, I sentence you to life imprisonment. There will be an order that you serve 12 years before being eligible for parole.

Simon France J