High Court orders fresh inquest into teen's death linked to online challenge

Ellen Roome sat in the High Court and wept as the judge read out his decision: the inquest into her son's death would be reopened. Four years earlier, in 2022, her 14-year-old son Jools Sweeney had died in what she believed was an online challenge gone wrong. The original inquest, held in September that year, had lasted 23 minutes. No witnesses were called to give live evidence. A narrative conclusion was returned and the case was closed.

But Roome did not accept that outcome. She believed crucial information had been overlooked—specifically, what her son had been viewing and doing on social media in the moments before his death. She took her case to the High Court and challenged the senior coroner for Gloucestershire's conclusion. On this July morning, Lord Justice Warby and Mrs Justice Heather Williams sided with her. The original inquest was quashed. A fresh one would be ordered.

The significance of the ruling extended far beyond Roome's family. This was believed to be the first case in England and Wales in which a court had ordered a fresh inquest specifically to allow proper examination of a deceased child's social media and device data. The timing mattered. When Jools died, the Online Safety Act 2023 did not yet exist. Neither did the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. These new laws meant that Ofcom could now compel social media companies to hand over information—what a child had viewed, what they had uploaded, the full digital footprint of their final hours. Roome's lawyers had told the court that new evidence had emerged concerning social media's role in Jools' death, and that several lines of inquiry at the original inquest had never been pursued. Those inquiries, they argued, bore directly on TikTok's platform and the data it held.

Neither the coroner nor TikTok opposed the bid to reopen the inquest. In her statement after the ruling, Roome spoke directly to other parents. "I cannot live the rest of my life without trying to look for answers as to why my son's not here," she said. "To every parent facing the unimaginable, please don't give up. We never stopped fighting for our son, and today's decision shows that hope should never be lost."

She was not alone in the courtroom. Mariano Janin, from London, had come to watch. His daughter Mia had taken her own life in 2021, and he believed cyber-bullying on social media had played a role. He told the BBC he would now consider applying to reopen Mia's inquest as well. "Most of the parents that lose children, they don't fight because you lost all the motivation," he said. "But what Ellen is doing, it's very important."

Janin's broader point cut to the heart of the matter. Social media companies, he argued, were the only entities with both the technology and the financial resources to change their business models in ways that would genuinely protect young people. Yet they had resisted accountability for years. Roome had already begun a lawsuit against TikTok in January 2025, claiming that a group of children, including her son, had died while attempting a "blackout challenge"—a dangerous online dare. No subsequent hearings had taken place. TikTok's response, when asked, was formulaic: the company strictly prohibited content that promoted dangerous behavior.

Roome has become a leading voice in campaigns to restrict social media access for children since Jools' death. She framed the High Court's decision as a potential turning point not just for her family but for child safety online more broadly. "If Jools' legacy helps protect even one child or gives one family the answers they deserve, then he will have changed the world," she said. The fresh inquest, when it takes place, will test whether the new legal tools available to coroners can finally illuminate what happened in those final moments—and whether the platforms that shaped them will, at last, be forced to answer for what they allowed.