NRT briefing
Katie Price 'really shocked' by ex-husband rape
Based on reporting by BBC News.
The Brief
Katie Price has testified in court that she was "really shocked" to learn of allegations that her ex-husband, Kieran Hayler, raped a teenage girl. Hayler is on trial for three counts of rape and one of sexual assault against a then-13-year-old girl in West Sussex in 2016; he denies all charges.
Giving evidence behind a screen on Monday, Price said the alleged victim told her in text messages that Hayler "had tried to kiss her" and "had done stuff to her." Price said that when she confronted Hayler, his response was consistently "no I hadn't."
She told jurors the girl said there was "definitely a kiss and that he said he loved her," and that she could tell the complainant was "afraid." Price also said she used Hayler's fingerprints to access his phone while he was reportedly intoxicated.
The alleged victim first contacted the NSPCC in 2021, which referred her to police. Hayler and Price were married at the time of the allegations but divorced in 2021. Hayler has suggested Price launched a "campaign" against him when their marriage ended, which the allegations are part of. The alleged victim is not related to either Hayler or Price. The trial continues.
NRT commentary
How We See It
This case underscores the difficulty of adjudicating sexual assault allegations that surface years after the events in question. The gap between the alleged 2016 incidents and the 2021 NSPCC referral raises understandable questions about evidence preservation and witness credibility. Hayler's claim that his ex-wife's animosity has shaped these allegations is a defense that resonates with anyone familiar with how contentious divorces can blur the lines between grievance and justice.
A presumption of innocence is not just a legal technicality; it is vital when public figures are involved, given that media coverage can influence public opinion long before a verdict. While the allegations are serious and must be taken seriously, the public would be better served by awaiting the full evidence and the jury's decision rather than reaching conclusions based on emotionally charged testimony alone.
The court's process, imperfect as it may be, remains the only fair mechanism for separating truth from allegation.
Commentary uses AI assistance. Read about our automated checks or report a correction.