Self-declared ‘too glamorous’ model, 60, handed 24-week suspended jail sentence and £53,000 legal bill for breaking injunction imposed after ‘antisocial behaviour’ at her ‘mermaid haven’ seaside beach hut

• ‘Glamorous’ Michele Spicer clashed after ‘antisocial behaviour’ at her beach hut
• Former teacher carried out a ‘revenge campaign’ against her ex-neighbour

A 60-year-old model who claimed she was forced out of her beach hut for being ‘too glamorous’ has been handed a suspended jail sentence and a £53,000 legal bill for breaking an injunction following a ‘revenge campaign’ against her neighbour.

‘Glamorous’ Michele Spicer clashed with locals who accused her of ‘antisocial behaviour’ at her seaside beach hut – which she dubbed  her ‘mermaid haven’.

Fed up residents of Goring by Sea, West Sussex, reported the former teacher’s rowdy behaviour to the council as they accused her of carelessly parking her open-top Mercedes sports car and blasting music on the vehicle’s radio.

And animosity grew as she became convinced that one neighbour in particular was involved in a plot to evict her from her beachfront hut. 

The relaxing retreat was taken away from her by the local council in 2021 – making her the first person to be evicted from a beach hut in 25 years.

‘Glamorous’ Michele Spicer clashed with locals who accused her of ‘antisocial behaviour’ at her beach hut – which she dubbed her ‘mermaid haven’. Pictured: Ms Spicer relaxing at her seaside retreat

Fed up residents of Goring by Sea, West Sussex, reported the former teacher’s rowdy behaviour to the council. Pictured: Ms Spicer posing in a bikini outside Worthing Law Courts

Last week, she was dragged to the High Court, where Judge Richard Pearce, having found her in contempt of court for breaching the injunction, handed Ms Spicer a 24-week jail sentence, suspended for two years. Pictured: Ms Spicer outside London’s High Court

Ms Spicer claimed she had sparked her neighbours’ resentment due to her ‘glamorous’ looks and her Mercedes sports car

Ms Spicer claimed she had sparked her neighbours’ resentment due to her ‘glamorous’ looks and her Mercedes sports car.

Speaking in 2021, she said: ‘I think it’s because they’re jealous of me because I’m a model and I’m very glamorous with a sports car.’

Ms Spicer began a ‘revenge campaign’ against the lady, which got so bad her victim had to leave town and change jobs.

The neighour – who cannot be named – would put on a hoodie and shades even when going to the corner shop to avoid being spotted, London’s High Court heard.

Her neighbour’s barrister, Kate Strange, said the victim – who had been branded a ‘vulture’ in Instagram posts by Ms Spicer – had been driven from the seaside town she loved, ‘ruining’ her life. 

‘The harassment complained of by the claimant included verbal abuse, pestering behaviour, intimidation and photographing, and recording of the claimant without her consent,’ said the barrister.

She ended up making 30 complaints to the police, resulting in two ‘community protection orders’ being slapped on Ms Spicer.

But the police action ‘appeared to have no effect’ on Ms Spicer, the court heard, and in July last year the neighbour felt there was ‘no choice but to seek an injunction to curb Ms Spicer’s harassment of her’. 

The relaxing retreat was taken away from her by the local council in 2021 – making her the first person to be evicted from a beach hut in 25 years

Ms Spicer began a ‘revenge campaign’ against her neighbour, which got so bad her victim had to leave town and change job

The neighour – who cannot be named – would put on a hoodie and shades even when going to the corner shop to avoid being spotted, London’s High Court heard

Neighbours accused Ms Spicer of carelessly parking her open-top Mercedes sports car and blasting music on the vehicle’s radio

The court order barred Ms Spicer from the waterfront area near her former hut, from contacting or communicating with her victim or visiting the gym she frequents, and from generally ‘harassing or stalking her’.

But despite the injunction, she ‘continued to harass and intimidate the claimant,’ said Ms Strange, leaving her little option but to haul Ms Spicer to court for contempt of court.

Last week, she was dragged to the High Court, where Judge Richard Pearce, having found her in contempt of court for breaching the injunction, handed Ms Spicer a 24-week jail sentence, suspended for two years.

But she was also hit in the pocket when the judge ordered her to pay her former neighbour’s legal costs – estimated by lawyers at £53,000.

The damning result comes just weeks after Ms Spicer – who has previously posed outside court in a metallic gold bikini – bragged on social media her accusers were as ‘thick as planks’ and that she is ‘super intelligent and smarter than them they can’t bear it’.

The rowdy model paid £15,000 for the beach hut in the wake of a divorce in 2020.

The case came before Judge Pearce in the High Court last week as Ms Strange applied for Ms Spicer to be jailed for defiance of a court order.

The barrister said Ms Spicer had shown little remorse for her target, adding: ‘my client has had her life ruined by the actions of Ms Spicer’.

Ms Spicer was the subject of 30 complaints to the police, resulting in two ‘community protection orders’

But the police action ‘appeared to have no effect’ on Ms Spicer, the court heard, and in July last year the neighbour felt there was ‘no choice but to seek an injunction to curb Ms Spicer’s harassment of her’

The court order barred Ms Spicer from the waterfront area near her former hut, from contacting or communicating with her victim or visiting the gym she frequents, and from generally ‘harassing or stalking her’

The rowdy model paid £15,000 for the beach hut in the wake of a divorce in 2020. Pictured: The inside of Ms Spicer’s retreat

‘She appears to be motivated by a wish to punish the claimant and to put pressure on her, and to make her life difficult – even unbearable – because she did the unthinkable and complained about her anti-social behaviour.

‘Her conduct has been repetitive, persistent and marked by a desire to cause maximum distress to the claimant.

‘She forced her to change jobs and move home and her mental health has deteriorated significantly.

‘She has chosen to uproot her life and home and job in order to get away from Ms Spicer.’

Ms Spicer admitted a series of breaches of the injunction by posting ‘abusive content’ on her Instagram account.

Her barrister told the judge she is now ‘extremely remorseful,’ also pointing out there had been no physical contact between her and her victim.

Ruling, Judge Pearce said that despite being singled out by Ms Spicer as a key figure in lodging complaints to the council, the victim had acted ‘entirely appropriately in seeking to challenge such anti-social behaviour’.

The loss of her ‘pride and joy’ beach hut had a devastating impact on Ms Spicer, he added, prompting the revenge campaign which ultimately forced her victim to sell her house, move jobs and even don a disguise when doing her groceries.

Speaking after the hut was removed, Ms Spicer claimed complaints came because she’s a model and locals were ‘jealous’ Pictured: Letters of complaint from Michele Spicer from her neighbours

Ruling, Judge Pearce said that despite being singled out by Ms Spicer as a key figure in lodging complaints to the council, the victim had acted ‘entirely appropriately in seeking to challenge such anti-social behaviour’

Her barrister told the judge she is now ‘extremely remorseful,’ also pointing out there had been no physical contact between her and her victim

Ms Spicer admitted a series of breaches of the injunction by posting ‘abusive content’ on her Instagram account

Eviction from the hut sparked ‘significant aggravation and escalation in Ms Spicer’s behaviour,’ said the judge.

‘It caused her for whatever reason to pick on the claimant particularly as a target for her conduct hereafter.’

Taking account of Ms Spicer’s fragile mental health, he said he was ‘on a very narrow balance persuaded to suspend this sentence’.

He handed Ms Spicer a 24-week sentence, suspended for two years, and ordered her to pay her neighbour’s legal costs, estimated at £53,000.

Source: Read Full Article