Six months to serve

Jason Simpson, a two-year resident of Jasper, was sentenced to serve a combined six months in jail after pleading guilty to assault and mischief charges in Provincial Court last Thursday.

In the early morning hours of March 17, Simpson punched another young man in the back of the head at Pete’s Club, knocking his victim unconsious for a short time. He was arrested the next month on a warrant relating to the mischief charge, filed by his former landlord from a Geikie Street property. Simpson had allegedly done $1,600 worth of damage to the walls and windows of the building in question.

Originally from Toronto, the 29-year-old admitted in court to being a binge drinker on weekends, but also pointed out that in the time since the incident he had continued to remain acquaintances with the victim.

In sentencing Simpson to five months for the assault and a further 30 days for the mischief count, Judge Donald Norheim cited an extensive prior record as a contributing factor to the length of jail time.

“Your record is horrible, full of substance abuse and assaults,” Norheim told Simpson. “It looks to me like they’ve tried just about anything with you.”

Once released from his period of incarceration, Simpson will be bound by the terms of an 18-month probation. These clauses included a prohibition from carrying weapons, required attendence at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, and abstinence from drugs and alcohol.

He is also prohibited from having any contact with the man he assaulted.

Atha-B brouhaha

Also during last Thursday’s session of Jasper Provincial Court, a local man was convicted of stealing a small amount of money from the Athabasca Hotel last November.

Kevin Douglas Hughes, a former day bartender at the Atha-B, was found guilty by Judge Norheim after a trial that centred on inventory sheets and a case of Extra Old Stock that could not be accounted for.

The 38-year-old had been working for the bar for more than a year when his supervisors became aware of inventory problems. Bar manager Tim Howes testified that beer was disappearing from the cooler without cash in the till to show for it.

“The last thing on our minds was theft, but eventually we agreed that it was the only explanation,” Howes told the court.

Howes began a daily inventory count on November 13. That day, an examination of the numbers revealed $90 missing and a similar tally on the following day indicated a shortfall of about $160. Hughes worked his regular shift on both these days, but on November 15 he had a day off. At the end of the business day, the Atha-B was only out a bottle of beer, Howes said.

A decision was then made for management to meet with Hughes about the inventory issue, the court heard. At the meeting, Hughes asked if his superiors suspected him of stealing the money. When they asked if he did, he responded “sure,” and left the hotel, never to return.

The provincial crown prosecutor then brought an Atha-B regular to the stand to testify that he had purchased a case of Extra Old Stock, a beer with a unique price, on November 14, 2004. That transaction was not recorded on the bar computers, a discrepancy that was explained as simple error by Hughes when he testified.

From time to time, an incorrect sale would be entered and rather than retracing his steps, Hughes would simply attempt to balance the ledger by the end of the day by making a deliberate substitution later on.

Laurie Rodger, representing Hughes before Judge Norheim, argued that because at least a dozen employees on the night shift had access to the beer cooler, “the fact that there was something missing could have been attributed to a number of people.”

As to why the problems ceased upon Hughes departure from the Atha-B, Rodger posited that whoever was responsible stopped their activities after the fuss that was created, fearful of being discovered.

Norheim found the combination of circumstances too significant to ignore, he said in delivering his guilty verdict.

“The chances of all these coincidences corresponding are extremely remote,” he said. 

“The additional factor of his admission is a significant element and the overall evidence satisfies me ... beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Rodger, clearly discomfited by the decision, told Norheim that his client “strongly denies his guilt in this matter,” and added to the prosecutor that he would be pursuing an appeal.