Katie Price avoids prison after breaching restraining order

Katie Price arrives at Lewes Crown Court, East Sussex, where she was handed 170 hours of unpaid work for breaching a restraining order (Gareth Fuller/PA).

Katie Price has avoided jail for sending an “angry and inflammatory” message to her ex-husband in breach of a restraining order banning her from contacting his new partner.

The 44-year-old former glamour model sent Kieran Hayler a message on January 21 this year in which she branded his new partner, Michelle Penticost, a “c***ing whore” and a “gutter slag”.

She had pleaded guilty to breaching the restraining order and was sentenced to an 18-month community order with 150 hours of community service with an additional 20 hours for breach of a suspended sentence for driving matters.

She was also ordered to pay £1,500 court costs.

Katie Price arrives at Lewes Crown Court for her sentencing hearing (Gareth Fuller/PA).

Judge Stephen Mooney told Price: “In my judgement, this offence was committed out of anger.

“The words you used were highly offensive and inflammatory so the breach cannot be considered minor.

“In my judgement, balancing the aggravating and mitigating and aggravating factors, the appropriate sentence is a medium level community order.”

Price showed no emotion as the verdict was announced but she gave a brief smile as she left the dock.

Price was banned from contacting Ms Penticost directly or indirectly under the terms of a five-year restraining order imposed at Horsham Magistrates’ Court on June 3, 2019.

She was also fined £415 for hurling a foul-mouthed “tirade of abuse” at her during a row in a school playground.

The court heard that her message to Hayler may have been triggered by an Instagram post by Ms Penticost, which she denies was aimed at Price.

Price’s message read: “Tell your c***ing whore, piece of shit, girlfriend not to start on me.

“She has a restraining order so shouldn’t try antagonise me as she is in breach and I’m sure she doesn’t want people knowing that she was having an affair with you behind my back. That gutter slag.”

The court heard the offence was committed due to Price’s use of the words “tell your”, which was an indirect attempt to communicate with Penticost.

In a victim impact statement read to the court, Ms Penticost said the breach had a “devastating effect” on her mental wellbeing.

She said: “The impact of what Katie has done is very upsetting, I feel threatened and intimidated.

“I feel demoralised and not wanting to go out. The language used made me feel scared. I felt it was an attack on me.

“The consequences are I feel she will attack me. I felt by having a restraining order it would make me feel safe but by someone breaching it it has made me feel very vulnerable.”

The impact of what Katie has done is very upsetting, I feel threatened and intimidated.

Price attended court wearing an all-green outfit and was heard to tell a reporter to “suck my dick” after she was asked about the prospects of a prison sentence.

Nicholas Hamblin, representing Price, said that his client had pleaded guilty to the breach but she had been under a “misunderstanding” that the restraining order “worked both ways”.

He said there was an element of “provocation” and she had been “over-reacting as she felt she was being criticised”.

He added: “She has shown signs of remorse, she accepts an indirect breach.”

Mr Hamblin said that Miss Price had sought help for her emotional problems at the Priory Clinic.

He said she suffered from a “depressive disorder and anxiety” and added: “Miss Price is learning to cope with her emotional problems and to not react in the way she has in this case.”

He continued: “She has two different personalities, the public one and the vulnerable one of being in the public eye, every day in the public eye no matter what she does.

“It’s perhaps a case of building someone up only to knock them down.”

He added that “there was a lot of good to be said” for Price and she was considered in a probation report to be of “low risk of re-offending”.

Mr Hamblin said the offence was a “minor breach” of the restraining order because it was an “indirect” message and would have been “much more serious” if sent directly to the complainant’s phone.