B.C. court dismisses appeal of 'prolific and sophisticated' shoplifter

The lobby of B.C. Supreme Court in downtown Vancouver is seen in a CTV News file image.

British Columbia's highest court has rejected an attempt by a "prolific and sophisticated offender" to overturn his jail sentence for a $40,000 shoplifting scheme.

Emil Marian Stan, 40, was sentenced earlier this year to two years in jail – less six months for time served in pre-trial custody – after he was found guilty of multiple counts of theft spanning an eight-month period.

Stan and an accomplice used "clothing modified to conceal stolen items" to take high-end fragrances and athletic wear from Shoppers Drug Mart and Lululemon stores in the Surrey area, Justice Elizabeth Bennett wrote on behalf of a B.C. Appeal Court panel.

Stan's accomplice, 52-year-old Nicoleta Rusu, was sentenced to one year in jail after pleading guilty to five charges in a separate hearing.

The duo used "jamming devices" in addition to the modified clothing to disable store security systems and get away without detection, the judge wrote in the court's Dec. 11 decision.

Stan argued in his appeal that his sentence was unfit because the principle of parity would see his sentence reduced to match that of his accomplice.

The judge noted that Stan, who is originally from Romania, has a lengthy criminal record in the United Kingdom, as well as outstanding charges in Eastern Canada.

Rusu, on the other hand, had no prior criminal history, the judge wrote.

"Mr. Stan is a prolific and sophisticated offender," the judge wrote. "He has a long criminal record for committing similar offences."

An electrician by trade, Stan fell into debt due to gambling and a failed business, the judge noted.

"He borrowed money from unsavoury people," the decision said, describing how Stan committed the thefts to pay back the loan sharks he borrowed from.

The parity principle – the notion that similar offenders who commit similar offences should receive similar sentences – did not apply in this case because Stan and Rusu are not "similar offenders," the three-judge Appeal Court panel ruled.

"A significant point of difference is Mr. Stan's lengthy criminal record for related offences, whereas Ms. Rusu was sentenced as a first offender," Bennett wrote.

"In addition, Mr. Stan offended while he was on judicial interim release on other offences, which is an aggravating factor. In my view, those differences alone are sufficient to justify the differential and higher sentence imposed on Mr. Stan."

The Appeal Court panel upheld the lower court's sentencing decision, and noted that Stan has consented to deportation in compliance with an outstanding warrant.