Property developer loses harassment appeal

A property developer who terrorised a celebrity dermatologist after he performed a procedure on her eyes has lost her appeal against conviction.

Patricia Bailey, 71, bombarded Dr Philippe Hamida-Pisal with texts messages and phone calls, then turned up unannounced at his Harley Street practice.

The founder of PHP Aesthetics said Bailey even followed her home.

The Liverpudlian claimed the doctor ‘destroyed’ her face by causing it to swell up, but failed to provide any evidence and rejected his offer of free treatment.

She was convicted of harassing Dr Hamida-Pisal earlier this year after District Judge Alexander Jacobs found her messages went from being ‘amorous’ to threatening.

 

Bailey’s appeal against conviction at Southwark Crown Court was rejected by Judge David Tomlinson, sitting with two magistrates.

The judge said the doctor had decided to cease treating her after she sent him ‘inappropriate’ messages on 4 November 2019.

Her claim that Dr Hamada-Pisal had ‘botched’ her treatment was rejected by the bench, who were shown new text messages between the pair.

Judge Tomlinson said: ‘Mrs Bailey has focused on those missed appointments as the catalyst which would really justify her in taking up an issue between her and Dr Hamada-Pisal.

‘That text message shows conclusively that Dr Hamada-Pisal did offer a review, albeit with another consultant.

‘And she did not accept it and chose instead to harass him in the way that has been made out.

‘It is clear that on or after the 4th November and since that time, based on some really quite hyperbolic language which we have listened to, the appellant considers Dr Hamada-Pisal to be a complete fraud and charlatan and that explains the unfortunate series of events that has brought her to magistrates’ court and to this appeal.’

Judge Tomlinson said there were issues about Bailey’s reliability and evidence showed she had attended his home address and told a neighbour she wanted to ‘get’ him.

Bailey had received a four-month community order with a daily curfew of 8pm to 7am, £770 in costs and a £90 victim surcharge.

She was also made subject to a restraining order banning her from attending Harley Street or contacting the doctor for the next four years.

Bailey, who is now on benefits and claims to be in £50,000 debt, has been ordered to pay a further £520 for the cost of the appeal.

The appeal was told that a concerned neighbour, who allowed Bailey into the building in November, became increasingly concerned about her language as they spoke in the lobby.

Bailey told the neighbour the ‘doctor’ had ‘damaged her face and was not answering her calls, the court heard.

‘He had seduced her and she felt very angry,’ the neighbour wrote.

‘I will get him the way the Iranians tried to get my husband – parade by shooting’.

‘He was masquerading as my friend and confidant, then he destroyed my face.’

Representing herself, Bailey claimed the dermatologist had given her a ‘dermal filler’ injection after she told him she would be allergic.

She said: ‘Because on Friday 1 November I was a wee bit late, because I have a gammy foot, and I put a note through the door because that was the third appointment I had failed to keep that week.

‘I had sent him a voice note on Friday evening, I was so upset with the three lost appointments.

‘My eyes were weeping like a weeping money tree and my face had to be seen to be believed.

‘I had pawned my grandmother’s jewellery.

‘She complained that he had ‘bombarded’ her with 16 text messages on 4 November.

‘I was still hoping or praying that he would resolve my face in a harmonious way.’

Bailey also sent a series of messages to the dermatologist, telling him: ‘Philippe I cannot remember a man being so kind to me, the generosity and compassion you have given me, I’m so sorry for doubting you.

‘Philippe you are so special and unique to me and my life.

‘I want to be absolutely sure about how I truly feel about you.

‘Darling Philippe I’m coming down to see you tonight.’

Giving evidence during the original trial earlier this year Dr Hamada-Pisal said: ‘I never gave her my address. If she know my address it’s because she followed me. She followed me. End of story.’

‘I felt very uncomfortable, it was very frightening because for me as a medic there is something wrong with this behaviour. Someone following you home is not right.

‘If you follow someone home do you have something else in mind?

‘I was changing my route home, I’m a grown man but this affected me a lot.

‘I didn’t take any appointment after six as it was dark quickly.

‘I changed my journey from home to work, I was taking the outside exit not the main entrance because I checked the path of Ms Bailey and realised it wasn’t the first time.’

Bailey, of Adlam Road, Liverpool, denied but was found guilty after a trial of harassment without violence.

The conviction was upheld.
ends

Share this: