A defence lawyer argues his client did nothing to injure a man at the Beaver Valley Arena following a confrontation over the use of an air horn.
Closing arguments were held Thursday in Nelson at Glenn Holbrook’s trial. He was charged with the aggravated assault of Kevin Doherty following a KIJHL playoff game between the Beaver Valley Nitehawks and Grand Forks Border Bruins on March 19, 2025.
There is no dispute that Doherty approached Holbrook at the end of the game about his use of an airhorn. Everyone also agrees both men ended up at the bottom of a set of concrete stairs. What happened in between is at the heart of the case.
Holbrook’s lawyer, Alan Perello, told Judge Rob Brown that his client wasn’t responsible for Doherty’s fall and injuries. Alternatively, he argues Holbrook acted by reflex or in self-defence. In any case, Perello said Holbrook either lacked intent or his actions were justified, and therefore he is not guilty.
Perello said in Doherty’s version of events, he politely approached Holbrook about using the airhorn and was “violently thrown down the stairs and assaulted in front of dozens of spectators.”
But the defence lawyer said the allegation doesn’t make sense and isn’t supported by the evidence. He said the defence position is that Doherty was the author of his own misfortune by “aggressively” approaching Holbrook and his injuries were due to a fall that Holbrook did not cause.
Perello said Holbrook is smaller than Doherty. “He did not and likely could not throw Mr. Doherty down the stairs,” Perello said. “He did not intend for either of them to go down the stairs.”
Holbrook testified that Doherty approached him, grabbed his shoulder, and uttered a threat. Feeling he was about to be struck, Holbrook said he put his hands in front of his face to protect himself from a blow he was expecting, then lost his balance. He said he grabbed onto Doherty to avoid falling backwards.
Perello argued Holbrook was afraid for his safety when Doherty approached him. The exact words Doherty spoke are disputed, but Holbrook testified that it included a couple of expletives. Perello argued that another person in the same situation would have interpreted Doherty’s actions as “abnormal, unexpected, and frightening … A normal person in Holbrook’s situation would be startled, shocked, and afraid.”
The lawyer said Holbrook’s use of an airhorn didn’t justify Doherty’s response, nor did it make sense for Doherty to air his grievance with a stranger given that the game was over. He said the seriousness of the injuries Doherty suffered doesn’t alone mean Holbrook used unreasonable force. Doherty testifed that he suffered two dislocated knees, which required surgery. He also said his right elbow was injured and his head was bruised. He spent several days in hospital and said he remained in bed at home for over a month.
However, Perello claimed Doherty’s evidence was unreliable and lacked credibility, pointing to inconsistencies between medical records and the injuries he said he suffered. He said Doherty’s stated reason for approaching Holbrook doesn’t withstand scrutiny and alleged Doherty had been drinking that night, something he denied in his testimony.
The Crown also alleges Holbrook subsequently stomped on Doherty’s legs. Perello said the testimony of a lone witness who said he saw this happen lacks credibility and was “full of internal contradictions” and “implausible observations.”
Multiple witnesses testified that Doherty said “I was just joking” after the incident. Perello called this a “significant utterance” and “not the words of a man who was violently assaulted without provocation.”
Crown responds
Crown prosecutor William Westcott took issue with the defence’s portrayal of Doherty as a rabid hockey fan who was enraged by the game’s outcome. He said there was “no foundation” to the suggestion Doherty was drunk and angry about the Nitehawks losing.
Although medical records indicated Doherty drank one beer that evening, he denied doing so, and Westcott said the judge should reject the idea that Doherty was drunk.
Westcott also said Doherty putting his hand on Holbrook’s shoulder wasn’t a threatening gesture in itself, since it wasn’t uncommon to get someone’s attention that way in a noisy crowd.
Doherty’s explanation of what he said to Holbrook did not change over time, Westcott said, but he used different words to describe the message he was conveying. Westcott said Doherty “probably” used “rough language,” but there was doubt whether it actually rose to the level of a threat.
He disagreed with the defence’s claim that the witness who said he saw Holbrook jump on Doherty’s legs was unreliable. Westcott also said the defence presented no specific evidence that Holbrook acted in self-defence.
No date has been set for the judge’s verdict, but it’s expected to be fixed sometime after July 8.
