Fiance of Katie Price’s ex ‘felt threatened and intimidated’ by model and ‘feared she would attack her’

The fiancée of Katie Price’s ex said she felt “threatened and intimidated” by the glamour model - and feared she would be attacked.

Price had been banned from contacting Michelle Penticost directly or indirectly under the terms of a restraining order imposed in June 2019.

The 44-year-old Price pleaded guilty earlier this year to breaching the five-year restraining order. She was also fined £415 for hurling a foul-mouthed “tirade of abuse” at her during a row in a school playground.

On Friday the reality TV star avoided a prison sentence for the breach, and was instead given an 18 month community order to carry out 170 hours of unpaid work.

In a victim statement read to the Lewes Crown Court, Ms Penticost 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,” she continued. “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 has made me feel very vulnerable.”

In one message Ms Price sent to her ex-husband Kieren Hayler, she branded his new partner a “c***ing whore” and a “gutter slag”.

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

The message said: “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 Ms Price’s use of the words “tell your”, which was an indirect attempt to communicate with Penticost.

Nicholas Hamblin, representing the reality star, 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.”