A man who was 17 when he brutally murdered Indian IT professional Sandeep Dhiman has failed in his bid to have his life sentence reconsidered, with New Zealand’s Court of Appeal ruling that the punishment was not manifestly unjust despite his troubled childhood and young age.
Shaun Liam Karauria, now 26, sought permission to challenge his sentence years after it was imposed, arguing that developments in youth sentencing law meant he should instead have received a finite prison term.
The Court of Appeal has rejected the application, leaving Karauria’s life sentence and 12-year minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) in place.
Dhiman, 30, was murdered in December 2017 after Karauria and another 17-year-old, Rosie Page Lewis, devised a plan to steal a car.
As per the New Zealand Herald, according to the recently released Court of Appeal decision, Lewis befriended Dhiman on Tinder and persuaded him to drive to a remote location in Hawke’s Bay.
The court said Dhiman was effectively “set up”. Once at the location, Karauria took Dhiman for a walk and attacked him with a knife, stabbing him nine times.
It is reported that despite his injuries, Dhiman managed to stagger towards the road before collapsing. Karauria then attacked him again, stomping on his face and head.
“The clear purpose was to make sure he was dead,” the Court of Appeal decision stated.
As Karauria prepared to leave in Dhiman’s car, Lewis said she believed Dhiman had moved. He returned and attacked him again.
Dhiman was left on Matahorua Rd near Tūtira and was found dead about 12 hours later.
The IT professional had moved to New Zealand from India to pursue study and employment opportunities and had been living in Napier for about seven months before his death.
When Karauria was sentenced in the High Court in 2018, Justice Simon France described the killing as carefully planned and exceptionally brutal.
Those circumstances placed the murder among the most serious offending under New Zealand’s Sentencing Act, producing a starting point of a 17-year minimum period of imprisonment.
But the judge also considered Karauria’s age and difficult background.
His father died when he was 11, after which his upbringing became increasingly unstable. He moved between family members and spent periods living in Wairoa and Taranaki.
The court heard he had experienced violence, left school without qualifications and at times had been homeless.
He also suffered significant mental health difficulties, including depression, alcohol abuse, suicidal thoughts and self-harm.
Justice France described Karauria as emotionally immature and stressed that he was not to be assessed as though he were an adult.
“You are not an adult,” the judge said.
“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.”
Those factors resulted in a three-year reduction to the 17-year starting point.
His early guilty plea resulted in a further two-year reduction, leaving him with life imprisonment and a 12-year MPI.
Lewis also pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment with an 11-year minimum term.
Karauria’s latest challenge relied on a 2023 Court of Appeal decision, Dickey v R, which recognised that the neurological and cognitive development of young offenders can be relevant to culpability.
In some circumstances, the decision found, life imprisonment for a young offender convicted of murder could be manifestly unjust.
Karauria’s lawyer argued that Dickey represented a significant development in sentencing law and that, had those principles been available in 2018, the court might have imposed a finite sentence instead.
The Court of Appeal disagreed. It found that Justice France had already taken into account many of the factors highlighted in Dickey, including Karauria’s age, disadvantaged upbringing, mental health difficulties and emotional immaturity.
But the court also pointed to the deliberate planning and extreme brutality of Dhiman’s murder.
“In our view, the culpability attending his planned and brutal murder of Mr Dhiman would have prevented the imposition of a finite sentence,” the Court of Appeal ruled.
“A sentence of life imprisonment with an MPI of at least 12 years would not have been manifestly unjust.”
The court also noted that Karauria waited almost seven years after sentencing before filing his application in April 2025, saying the delay was relevant to the principle that criminal proceedings should eventually reach finality.
Support our Journalism
No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.
