The inquest into the death of 14-year-old Jools Sweeney, which his mother believes was linked to an online challenge, is to be reopened after the High Court quashed the original conclusion. Jools, from Gloucestershire, died in April 2022. The initial inquest in September 2022 lasted just 23 minutes, called no live evidence, and returned a narrative conclusion.
Mother's Legal Challenge
Jools' mother, Ellen Roome, launched a legal challenge against the senior coroner for Gloucestershire to have the conclusion quashed and the inquest reopened. Her lawyers told a hearing on Thursday that new evidence had emerged concerning 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 bid to reopen the inquest.
High Court Ruling
At the end of the hearing in London, Lord Justice Warby and Mrs Justice Heather Williams quashed the conclusion and ordered a new inquest. 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 would be decided by the coroner conducting the new inquest. However, he added that it was “now clear that there are various potential lines of inquiry” not previously considered, many identified due to the “tireless investigations undertaken by Ms Roome.” Ms Roome wept as the ruling was handed down.
New Evidence and Lines of Inquiry
Ms Roome's barrister, Harry Lambert, revealed in written submissions that the Attorney General approved her legal challenge in March, and Gloucestershire Police are also reviewing their investigation. 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, Lambert noted 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 platforms other than TikTok. Lambert also mentioned a fraudulent Instagram account operated by an African crime gang that contacted Jools shortly before his death, with evidence of a “possible attempt at extortion or ‘sextortion.’” He stated: “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.” He added: “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.”
TikTok's Position
Anthony Jones, representing TikTok, said in court that the company did not oppose Ms Roome's bid and could “certainly see the force” for a new inquest. He added that it would be for the coroner to decide what evidence is relevant.
Broader Campaign
Ms Roome is one of five British parents separately suing TikTok in the United States after their children's deaths. She has been campaigning for a change in the law to compel social media firms to hand over children's data to bereaved parents.
