Michelle Bridges Releases Strong Statement After Failed AVO
Celebrity fitness guru Michelle Bridges has failed in an attempt to get a court ordered AVO against a member of the paparazzo today.
The Sydney Magistrate dismissed her application against 21 year old Liam Benoit Mendes claiming she did not believe that the photographer's behaviour made her genuinely fearful.
Magistrate Keough did however agree that it may have caused Bridges frustrating and annoyance.
In response, Chic Talent Management have released a statement on behalf of Bridges and they are not mincing words.
"She fully accepts that paparazzi take pictures of her and her family in her private life," the statement read.
"In this instance however where her family, and in particular her child and partner’s children, were put into a precariously dangerous situation, the intrusion became totally unacceptable.
"The first event in question was when Michelle and her family were descending a flight of stairs from a restaurant in the dark, they were suddenly confronted by a mob of flashing bulbs, 3 men taunting and shouting at them and one particular paparazzi with a camera literally a foot away from her face.
"This activity caused Michelle to trip, very nearly causing her to fall whilst carrying her 3 month year old son in a pram down the stairs. Michelle and the children quite naturally became traumatised and upset by this event."
It was her second interaction with the photographer that allegedly prompted the personal trainer to take legal action.
"A week later the same paparazzo followed her into a supermarket and continued to be aggressive and inappropriate, taunting her with the aim of achieving a negative reaction," the statement continued.
"The managers of the supermarket thankfully reported him to Kings Cross Police whose actions were immediate and reassuring and they issued an AVO that evening. Michelle would like to thank the police for their professionalism in handling the situation."
After the ruling was made official, Mendes addressed the media.
He said the decision was important for photographers, continuing to protect their right to do their job.
"If someone of public interest doesn't want to have their photo taken or be in the public eye, even though they are out there looking for it, we still have got that right to go out there and do that," he said.