A 性视界传媒 provincial court judge's decision to sentence Emil Marian Stan to 18 months in jail and two years probation related to a "sophisticated shoplifting scheme" has been upheld by the Court of Appeal for British Columbia in Vancouver.
Stan's appeal was dismissed by Justice Elizabeth Bennett on Dec. 11, with Justices Christopher Grauer and Janet Winteringham concurring. She found the 性视界传媒 judge committed no error in principle and the sentence "was not demonstrably unfit."
The sentence was for 10 offences arising from the scheme. The court heard that Stan and his co-accused Nicoleta Rusu over eight months stole roughly $40,000 worth of "high-end" products from Shoppers Drug Mart and Lulelemon, with Rusu wearing clothing that was "modified to conceal stolen items.
"They used jamming devices to disable the security systems when they departed the store," Bennett noted in her
Rusu was sentenced to 12 months after pleading guilty to five counts while Stan's case went to trial.
The Crown sought a three-year sentence for Stan less credit for his pre-trial custody, Bennett noted, "while the defence counsel essentially sought a sentence of time served, which was around six months credit for pre-trial custody."
Stan, acting as his own legal counsel in his appeal, submitted the sentence imposed by the 性视界传媒 judge was unfit and should be in line with Rusu's.
"Mr. Stan, who is from Romania, has a lengthy criminal record from the time he lived in the United Kingdom, as well as outstanding charges in eastern Canada. Ms. Rusu has no criminal record," Bennett noted in her reasons. The court heard he was an electrician who "apparently fell into debt due to gambling and a failed business.
"He borrowed money from unsavoury people. He says he committed the thefts in order to pay back the loan sharks who were demanding their money. There is an outstanding warrant to deport Mr. Stan. He has consented to deportation."
Bennett noted in upholding the sentence that Rusu was a first-time offender whereas Stan has a lengthy record for such offences and committed his crimes while on a judicial interim reason on other matters, which the appeal court judge found to be "an aggravating factor.
"In my view, those differences alone are sufficient to justify the differential and higher sentence imposed on Mr. Stan. In my view, the sentencing judge did not err by misapplying the parity principle," she found. "The sentencing judge carefully calculated fit sentences for each offence, resulting in a sentence of three years, applied the totality principle and concluded that three years was cumulatively too long, and reduced the sentence to two years. He then applied the credit for pre-trial custody, which was approximately six months."
