A Man Who Stalked Billie Piper for Years Has Been Jailed — Here's What Happened

A 49-year-old man from Winchester has been given 12 months in prison for breaking a court order meant to keep him away from the actor and singer Billie Piper.

Philip Jerome admitted to four breaches of the order at Basingstoke Magistrates' Court on 25 August 2026. District judge Kirsty Allman sentenced him on his birthday. Anisa Alrubaie led the prosecution. Jerome's lawyer, Caroline Bonavia, said her client showed no remorse or empathy, but noted that he had started seeing a psychologist (The Guardian).

Jerome has been pursuing Piper for more than eight years. In 2018, a court gave him a restraining order — a legal instruction to stay away from a specific person — after he showed up at Piper's home, pushed cards through her letterbox, and sent her letters by post. Within months, he broke that order by sending Facebook messages to Piper's mother and sister, saying he wanted to meet up.

He did not stop there. In 2022, Jerome went to a pop culture convention and posed for a fan photo with Piper twice on the same day, changing his clothes between the two photos. He was jailed for that. That same year, the court gave him a stalking prevention order. This is a newer type of court order, created in 2019, that lets police ask a court to restrict someone before their behaviour gets worse. It can ban a person from contacting someone, going to certain places, or watching them online. It can also require them to attend a treatment programme. Breaking this order is a crime with a maximum sentence of five years in prison.

The latest case came from evidence the police found when they checked Jerome's phone and other devices in December 2025. Officers found four saved images of Piper on his phone. Jerome had also tagged Piper in 11 posts and pictures on X, the social media platform formerly called Twitter. The court heard that Piper's X account was run by her personal assistant, who protected Piper from negative posts and usually did not show them to her. This detail matters because it shows Jerome was posting to a public account managed by someone else, rather than getting any response from Piper herself.

During sentencing, judge Allman told Jerome he had a sexual interest in Piper and that his reasons for contacting her were based on delusions. Jerome's lawyer did not argue against this. She accepted his lack of remorse and empathy but pointed to his psychological support as something that should reduce his sentence.

The broader context here is about the different tools courts in England and Wales have for dealing with stalkers. The 2018 restraining order Jerome first received has been criticised by campaigners for being reactive — it only comes after someone has already been convicted of an offence, rather than stepping in early to prevent harm. The stalking prevention order was created to fix that problem by allowing courts to act sooner.

What this case shows is how hard it is to stop someone who is determined to get around court orders over many years and across different platforms. Jerome's behaviour followed a clear pattern of escalation: turning up at Piper's home, then contacting her family online, then meeting her in person at a public event, then tracking and tagging her on social media. Each time he broke an order, the legal system responded, but each response was followed by more contact. The 12-month sentence is the latest in a series of prison sentences and court orders going back to 2018. The facts suggest that neither the restraining order nor the stalking prevention order has worked as a deterrent.

One detail that matters for people who work in stalking cases is that Piper's X account was managed by her assistant. This makes the evidence more complicated: Piper may not have known about the posts when they were made, which affects how the harm is assessed. The conduct is still a criminal breach of the order, whether or not she saw the material.

Jerome's lawyer pointed to his psychological treatment as a reason for a lighter sentence, and the 12-month term reflects the court's judgement. Whether that time in prison, or any conditions after his release, will change his behaviour is a real and open question. The history of this case gives the criminal justice system every reason to be uncertain about the answer.