Supermodel Naomi Campbell told a tribunal on Tuesday that “I’m here because I have been deceived”, in her evidence at an appeal hearing to overturn a charity ban against her.

She also asked for questions to be “respectful” during the opening exchanges at the central London tribunal, as she bid to get the ban overturned.

The 56-year-old was disqualified from being a charity trustee for five years in 2024 after the Charity Commission – which regulates charities in England and Wales – found serious mismanagement of funds at the charity she founded, Fashion For Relief.

This included using charity funds to pay for her stay at a five-star hotel in Cannes, France, as well as spa treatments, cigarettes and room service.

Campbell was one of three of the charity’s trustees to be disqualified as a result of the investigation. Bianka Hellmich was disqualified for nine years, and Veronica Chou for four years.

During her evidence, Campbell said her “only mistake” was trusting Hellmich, who she alleges forged her signature and lied about her credentials as a charity lawyer.

The tribunal has previously heard claims from Campbell’s legal team that from 2016 to 2021, Hellmich appeared to have been paid in excess of £500,000 from charity funds.

Campbell told the tribunal on Tuesday: “I did not do a check on Bianca [Hellmich] – when I’m introduced to a lawyer, I assume they are acting within the law.”

She rejected a suggestion that she should have checked, saying Hellmich “came across as a lawyer” and worked in “official positions”.

“I don’t look at it as a failure, I look at it as me trusting someone that I knew, someone that was a lawyer,” Ms Campbell said.

Judge Joe Neville intervened during exchanges between Faisel Sadiq, for the Charity Commission, and Campbell as he cross-examined her.

Campbell said: “I’m here because I have been deceived, you are here because you have been deceived, so let’s both be respectful to each other.”

After a number of interruptions from the supermodel, Mr Sadiq said: “It would be very helpful if you answer the questions I have asked.”

Judge Neville later said: “Not everything Mr Sadiq says is a challenge.”

“Yes but it comes across as a challenge,” Ms Campbell said.

The judge then picked up Mr Sadiq for being “unnecessarily challenging” two questions later.

Campbell told the tribunal that Fashion For Relief was set up in 2005 in the US and did not “have a problem” before it became a registered charity in the UK.

She said she “loved” the charity work and said “I’m already famous enough” at the suggestion that she might do it for “the PR”.

In written submissions on behalf of Campbell, Andrew Westwood KC, said: “Ms Hellmich held herself out as a lawyer with the expertise to handle the charity’s legal, regulatory and financial functions and advised Ms Campbell that she could properly confine herself to a limited role assisting with the charity’s fundraising efforts and strategy – in effect, acting as a figurehead – while Ms Hellmich assumed responsibility for those regulatory and financial functions.”

He later said: “Ms Hellmich carried out a long-term and consistent scheme of mismanagement and deception in relation to the running of the charity and she concealed the same from Ms Campbell and others.”

In his written submissions, Mr Sadiq argued that “it was not legally open” to Campbell to “abdicate” her responsibilities as a trustee and simply act as a figurehead.

Pressed by Mr Sadiq on whether she should have done more due diligence, Campbell told the tribunal: “I trusted the wrong person, what more do you want?

“You trusted her too because you were in communication with her until we let you know that you were deceived.”

As the morning evidence concluded, Campbell accused the commission of also failing to check Hellmich’s credentials.

“I’m one person, I don’t have a management team, the Charity Commission is a government body, did you do your due diligence? No,” said Campbell.

The forgery and fraud alleged against Hellmich has been referred to the police by Campbell’s team and by the Charity Commission, the tribunal has heard.

The tribunal continues.