Social Media User Data and Inquest Practice after “Jools’ Law”

Two recent legal developments raise the prospect of more extensive consideration of social media user data in inquests, particularly where the investigation involves the unexpected death of a child that is 5 – 17 years old. 

First, the enactment of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 includes “Jools’ Law”: amendments to existing statutes which aim to secure the retention of a child’s social media data after their death. The law is the result of a years-long campaign by Ms Ellen Roome, mother of Julian “Jools” Sweeney, who died on 13 April 2022 at the age of 14. 

Second, last week the High Court ordered a fresh inquest into Julian’s death, which was the result of a self-inflicted injury, following an application from Ms Roome: Roome [2026] EWHC 1808 (Admin) (§ references in this post are generally to that judgment). 

The Court concluded that it was desirable in the interests of justice for there to be a fresh inquest because of insufficiency of inquiry in the original inquest, and the emergence of new evidence. Some of that evidence related to Julian’s use of social media platforms including TikTok.

The relevant Senior Coroner did not oppose the application, nor did TikTok (TikTok Information Technologies UK Limited), which was joined to the proceedings on the basis that it was directly affected by the application and would likely be an interested person in any fresh inquest. 

Julian’s Death & Inquest

On the day of his death Julian Sweeney had been spending time with a friend and was said to have been “behaving entirely normally” (§7). Later, at about 9.50pm, Julian messaged another friend to ask if he wanted to play a video game. He was then found by his mother and her partner in medical distress. An ambulance crew attended but sadly Julian was pronounced dead (§8-9). The recorded medical cause of death was limited to the mechanism of death. There was no evidence of alcohol or drug use (§10).

As part of their investigation Police undertook an examination of Julian’s iPhone, iPad, and computer. They were also told that Julian occasionally referred to self-harm / suicide with friends but “due to how he had presented the rest of the time no-one who knew Julian was hugely concerned about this” (§11). Ms Roome has suggested that her son may have been attempting an online challenge; with his death being entirely unintended (§19(6)). 

The final inquest hearing into Julian’s death lasted less than half an hour (§12). The Assistant Coroner recorded a narrative conclusion which included details of the mechanism by which Julian died as well as:

“… The police confirmed that there was no third-party involvement. No suicide note was found. The deceased’s family could offer no explanation as to why the deceased might commit suicide”.

Tireless Investigations, and a Fresh Inquest

After the inquest, Ms Roome undertook what the High Court called “tireless investigations” (§35), which revealed that the Police examination of Julian’s iPhone, iPad, and computer were limited. This included that, although the officer “submitted a data request to TikTok, this was declined without a court order, which she was unable to obtain as she was not investigating an indictable offence” (§§14-15). Expert reports commissioned by Ms Roome into the original investigation were “highly critical” (§17). 

These reports, and a witness statement from Ms Roome, drew attention to concerns about the investigation both in relation to Julian’s social media use (including Instagram, Snapchat, and in particular TikTok), and also to wider aspects of the case (§§17, 19), including the possibility of a person referred to as “John Smitt” making contact with Julian prior to his death.

Ms Roome was granted an Attorney General’s fiat (a legal requirement before she could apply to the High Court to quash the inquest) and then applied to the High Court itself to have the inquest conclusion quashed.

The High Court recalled that the statutory test requires that it be either necessary or desirable in the interests of justice for there to be a fresh inquest (§27). 

In this case, it decided that it was desirable for there to be a fresh inquest because of insufficient inquiry and the availability of new evidence (§34, §§30-31). Although the Court broadly agreed with the application it did not necessarily accept all of the points raised by the applicant (§36). 

Decisions on the quashing of an inquest, and the ordering of a fresh inquest, are highly case-specific. Factors including the availability of fresh evidence, the sufficiency of inquiry, the potential for a different conclusion, submissions by the Coroner (and other interested persons), may all influence the High Court’s decision-making. 

It is therefore necessary to be cautious about generalisations from Julian’s case about the role of the social media user data as inquest evidence.

Indeed, the decision was made in part for two reasons which seemingly did not relate to Julian’s social media use: the potential for additional witnesses (§38(6)), and the potential to consider Ms Roome’s account of the position in which she found Julian (§38(8)). It may have been the case that one or both of those reasons, on their own, would have been sufficient to merit a fresh inquest.

However, a plurality of the reasons given by the High Court did relate to Julian’s social media use, and the limitations of the initial investigation into that use. A fresh inquest may involve well evidence from at least two of the platforms used by Julian (Instagram and TikTok – and potentially also SnapChat). The judgment is, therefore, a reminder of the need for sufficient inquiry into social media use, where it may be relevant. 

“Jools’ Law”: Posthumous Data Retention

The High Court decision comes after (but not in consequence of) the recent enactment of “Jools’ Law”, the amendment of two statutory regimes by s. 247 Crime and Policing Act 2026, after a campaign by Ms Roome in Julian’s memory.

The first amendment will insert a section 31A into the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The new section will impose a duty on Senior Coroners, where a child aged 5 – 17 dies in their area, to notify Ofcom of the death. The duty will apply to all such deaths within the Coroner’s area unless (i) the Coroner decides they need not investigate the death (i.e. because it does not meet the legal requirements for investigation); or (ii) the Coroner decides that information about the use of internet services by the child is “of no relevance to the child’s death”.

The second set of amendments are to s. 101 of the Online Safety Act 2023. The amendments provide that the Coroner’s notification will trigger Ofcom to issue an information notice to service providers to retain data about the child’s service use for an initial period of six months, extendable at the request of the Coroner. The intention is to preserve evidence of a child’s online activity in case it is of relevance to the Coroner’s investigation.

There are practicalities of the operation of these duties which will likely require, amongst other things, guidance for Senior Coroners on their new duty. There may also need to be guidance for all Coroners (i.e. including Area and Assistant Coroners) about obtaining disclosure of retained social media user data. The new provisions have not yet been brought into force. 

Ensuring Sufficiency of Inquiry

Returning to Julian’s case, even after the High Court decision in Roome, it is not possible to predict with any certainty (i) what decisions on disclosure a new Coroner may make in relation to disclosure of Julian’s social media user data; (ii) what any disclosed material will reveal about how he came by his death; or (iii) whether that will lead to a different inquest conclusion (albeit it is difficult to envisage the same narrative conclusion being reached in a fresh inquest). 

Of course, not every inquest into the death of a child will necessarily involve a similar digital footprint. Nevertheless, once Jools’ Law commences operation, it seems reasonable to expect that a Coroner investigating an unexplained death, especially a self-inflicted one, will consider the question of social media use by the deceased. Sufficiency of inquiry is likely to require at least some examination of the data which retained by online service providers.

Recall that, in Dove [2023] EWCA Civ 289, the Court of Appeal concluded that in relation to death by suicide, a Coroner can “look at factors which contributed to mental health deterioration” before then considering whether those factors were causative of death (§70 of the Dove judgment; see discussion here). 

The fact that a Coroner cannot know, in advance of receipt of the data, the extent to which it will assist their investigation makes it difficult to justify any decision not to seek it. 

Roome, then, is a reminder of the need for Coroners to not merely rely on initial investigations undertaken by Police which, as in Julian’s case, may lack necessary disclosure and/or expertise. It is the Coroner upon whom the duty to investigate the death falls.

Moreover, even before commencement of the new provisions, Coroners already possess broad powers to order disclosure of material relevant to their investigation, and it is notable that in Julian’s case, TikTok confirmed that certain data had been retained, even under the existing legislative scheme (§23).

Further Issues for Inquest Practice

More broadly, the fact that more social media user data should now be retained, and that more of it could now be sought by Coroners, raises several significant practical issues. These include: 

• how the duty on Senior Coroners will operate (including identifying the correct user accounts at relevant service providers immediately after the unexpected death of a child, in particular when a child may use multiple accounts across different service providers and even at the same service provider);
• the potential volume of evidence that Courts may need to consider if retained data is disclosed;
• the technical capabilities required for Coroners and interested persons to examine the retained data (the technical capabilities of all courts, and perhaps in particular Coroners Courts, remains a challenge);
• the need for lawyers to understand what the data might say about how the deceased came by their death (if last year’s drama, Adolescence, illustrated anything, it was that social media messages, particularly those of young people, can be entirely misunderstood).

Sadly, given the significant number of deaths by suicide amongst young people (and deaths which may be self-inflicted but unintended), and the ubiquity of social media use, these are issues which will likely face all inquest practitioners sooner or later.

***

Samaritans Message: When life is difficult, Samaritans are here – day or night, 365 days a year. You can call them for free on 116 123, email them at jo@samaritans.org, or visit www.samaritans.org to find your nearest branch.