A mother has successfully fought in the High Court to have the inquest into her 14-year-old son's death reopened, seeking to determine if it was connected to a dangerous social media challenge. Jools Sweeney died at his home in Cheltenham in 2022. The original inquest, held in September of that year, lasted only 23 minutes and heard no live evidence before the coroner delivered a narrative conclusion.
Mother's long campaign for answers
Speaking after the ruling, Jools' mother, Ellen Roome, said: 'For more than four years we have fought every single day for the truth about what happened to our beautiful son, Jools. Today, the legal system has finally recognised that there are questions which deserve to be answered. This journey has broken us at times.' She added: 'It has taken an enormous emotional toll on our family, but we could never stop. We fought not only for Jools, but for every family who deserves to know the truth about how their child died. No parent should have to spend years battling for evidence that could explain the loss of their child. Every bereaved family deserves to know that every possible avenue, including a child's digital life, has been properly investigated.'
Legal challenge and new evidence
Ms Roome launched a legal challenge against the senior coroner for Gloucestershire to quash the original conclusion and order a new inquest. She has also campaigned for 'Jools' Law', which would grant parents the right to access their deceased child's data without a court order, and for wider reforms to social media, which she describes as 'not safe'. Ms Roome believes digital checks should be a standard part of post-mortem and inquest procedures, similar to toxicology reports for drugs and alcohol.
Her lawyers informed the High Court on Thursday that new evidence had emerged regarding the role of social media in Jools' death. They stated that a 'number of lines of inquiry' not pursued at the original inquest 'bear directly upon TikTok's platform and the data it holds'. The coroner and TikTok did not oppose the application to reopen the inquest.
High Court ruling
At the conclusion of the hearing in London, Lord Justice Warby and Mrs Justice Heather Williams quashed the original conclusion and ordered a new inquest at a later date. Lord Justice Warby said: 'We have concluded that the application should be granted. It is desirable in the interests of justice for a new inquest to be held.' He noted that it was 'simply not possible to know at this stage whether the same conclusion will be reached after appropriate investigations' and that the scope of the new inquest would be determined by the coroner. He added that it was 'now clear that there are various potential lines of inquiry' not previously considered, many identified through the 'tireless investigations undertaken by Ms Roome'.
Ms Roome, who was appointed MBE last year for her services to children's online safety, wept as the ruling was delivered.
Details of new evidence
Ms Roome's barrister, Harry Lambert, stated in written submissions that the Attorney General had granted permission for the legal challenge in March, and that Gloucestershire Police were also reviewing their investigation into Jools' death. He said: 'A considerable body of new evidence and a number of investigative insufficiencies have come to light, in particular concerning the role of social media, and of TikTok specifically, in the events leading to the deceased's death.' Evidence from Jools' TikTok data was described as 'highly probative of overuse or addiction'.
However, Mr Lambert cautioned that the reopened inquest 'could take many directions' and that 'several of the most significant lines of inquiry that were never pursued in 2022 have nothing to do with TikTok'. These include the possibility that Jools' Instagram account was hacked or that conversations before his death occurred on other social media platforms.
He also revealed that a fraudulent Instagram account operated by an African crime gang had contacted Jools shortly before his death, and phone evidence suggested a 'possible attempt at extortion or “sextortion”'. Mr Lambert concluded: 'Together, this material provides a much fuller evidential platform and paints a more comprehensive and potentially different picture of how the deceased came by his death. The applicant's concern is simply that all of these matters be fully and fearlessly investigated, whatever the outcome. She seeks only the truth about how her son died, wherever the evidence may lead.'
