Roome v Senior Coroner for Gloucestershire: High Court orders fresh inquest into teenager's death

The Divisional Court has quashed the record of inquest into the death of 14-year-old Julian "Jools" Sweeney and directed that a fresh investigation and inquest be held, in a judgement handed down on 16 July 2026 that places the adequacy of police examination of a deceased child's electronic devices squarely at the centre of the coronial process.

In R (Roome) v The Senior Coroner for Gloucestershire and TikTok Information Technologies UK Limited [2026] EWHC 1808 (Admin), Lord Justice Warby and Mrs Justice Heather Williams DBE granted the application brought under section 13(1)(b) of the Coroners Act 1988 by Ellen Roome, the deceased's mother, following the Attorney General's fiat of 13 March 2026.

Julian died on 13 April 2022 after being found hanging by a cord in his bedroom. The Assistant Coroner for Gloucestershire recorded the medical cause of death as ligature suspension and returned a narrative conclusion noting that no suicide note was found and that the family could offer no explanation for a suicide. The inquest, at which all evidence was read under rule 23 of the Coroners (Inquests) Rules 2013, lasted under 30 minutes.

The court accepted both strands advanced by Harry Lambert, instructed by Mishcon de Reya, for the claimant: insufficiency of inquiry and the discovery of new evidence. Applying the test as formulated by Lord Judge LCJ in the Hillsborough litigation, and confirmed as disjunctive in Vaughan v HM Senior Coroner for Gwent, the court held it desirable in the interests of justice that a further inquest be held, and found it unnecessary to determine whether one was also required.

Central to that conclusion was the treatment of the deceased's digital footprint. A report from the senior investigating officer dated 6 August 2025 disclosed that she had conducted only a manual review of the iPhone, had no digital forensic training, and had not relied on the Computerised Device Analysis and Acquisition Platform because of performance issues. A data request to TikTok was refused absent a court order, which she could not obtain as no indictable offence was under investigation. Reports commissioned from Fedora Investigations identified further material, including an Instagram message from an account styled "John Smitt" on 6 April 2022, after which no further account activity could be traced, and an artefact suggesting a location event some 1.6 to 1.7 miles from the address at 8.16pm on the day of death.

The court identified eight cumulative factors, among them two additional TikTok accounts unknown to police, data indicating very high platform usage with a proportion of accessed content subsequently removed, and witnesses present on the day who were never spoken to. It noted the limited evidence that Julian was unhappy or suicidal, observing that he had been arranging to see friends the following day.

TikTok, represented by Anthony Jones instructed by Taylor Wessing, did not oppose the application but appeared to address data retention, noting through a witness statement from partner Katie Chandler that certain behavioural data had been deleted in the ordinary course before notification of the death.

Warby LJ and Heather Williams J declined to rule on whether section 101 of the Online Safety Act 2023 or the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 would empower disclosure orders against platforms, noting coroners' existing statutory production powers and leaving scope to the coroner conducting the new inquest. Certain assertions in the claimant's skeleton were characterised as verging on speculation. No order as to costs was made.

Related proceedings alleging wrongful death against TikTok entities remain before the Superior Court of Delaware, where a motion to dismiss has been filed.