Background
Julian Sweeney, aged 14, was found hanging in his bedroom on 13 April 2022. An inquest held on 29 September 2022 concluded that the medical cause of death was ligature suspension, with a narrative finding that he was found hanging, police confirmed no third-party involvement, no suicide note was found, and his family could offer no explanation for why he might have taken his own life. Julian’s mother, Ellen Roome, appeared to be in good spirits on the day of his death, spending time with his best friend and messaging other friends about plans for the next day.
Approximately three years after the inquest, Ms Roome’s investigations uncovered significant gaps in the original police inquiry. She discovered that Julian had multiple TikTok accounts unknown to police, received a phishing message from a fraudulent account impersonating a girl, and was an extremely heavy social media user. Additionally, various witnesses were never interviewed, and Julian’s electronic devices were never forensically examined. Following these discoveries, the Attorney General granted Ms Roome fiat to apply for the inquest to be reopened.
The Court’s Holding
The High Court granted the application to quash the original inquest and ordered that a fresh investigation and inquest be held. Applying section 13(1)(b) of the Coroners Act 1998, which permits a fresh inquest where the High Court is satisfied that “it is necessary or desirable in the interests of justice that another inquest should be held,” the court concluded that the interests of justice were satisfied by new evidence and investigative insufficiencies identified by Ms Roome’s post-inquest investigations.
The court emphasised that it is not a precondition for granting a fresh inquest that the court anticipates a different verdict will be reached, nor that the original coroner be found at fault. Rather, the test is whether there is fresh evidence that may be reasonably relevant to the circumstances of death. The court noted that it is the role of the coroner conducting the new inquest—not the High Court—to determine its scope and the evidence to be received, including any compulsory disclosure orders to social media companies under newly enacted legislation.
The cumulative impact of multiple deficiencies persuaded the court to grant relief: (1) electronic devices were not forensically examined and social media was only partially reviewed; (2) police obtained no data from social media companies; (3) additional TikTok accounts existed but were unknown to police; (4) data showed Julian was an extremely heavy TikTok user with many accessed videos later removed from the platform; (5) evidence of a phishing attempt and possible account compromise existed; (6) key witnesses were never interviewed; and (7) newly discovered data suggested Julian may have left his home at an unexplained time on the evening of his death. The court also noted that Ms Roome’s account of the position in which she found her son was not before the Assistant Coroner.
Key Takeaways
- Coroners must ensure electronic devices of deceased persons—particularly teenagers—are subjected to proper forensic examination when social media use is potentially relevant to the circumstances of death.
- Investigative sufficiency in coronial inquiries now extends to obtaining data from social media platforms; newly enacted legislation (Online Safety Act 2023 and Data (Use and Access) Act 2025) provides coroners with compulsory disclosure powers that did not exist at the time of the original inquest.
- The test for reopening an inquest does not require proof that a different verdict would be reached; it is satisfied where new evidence may be reasonably relevant and investigative gaps existed.
- Family persistence in uncovering investigative gaps, supported by expert forensic analysis, may reveal material that justifies a fresh inquest in the interests of justice.
- Online threats including phishing, account takeover, and potential extortion or “sextortion” are investigative concerns that must be explored in deaths of young people with high social media engagement.
Why It Matters
This decision reflects a critical evolution in how the coronial system approaches deaths of young people in the digital age. It establishes that coroners cannot treat social media investigation as peripheral; where a young person spent significant time online, forensic examination of digital devices and cooperation from social media platforms becomes essential to the proper investigation of death. The decision recognises that phishing attacks, account compromise, extortion, and exposure to harmful content on platforms like TikTok may be relevant to understanding how a death occurred—particularly when, as here, the deceased appeared happy and was making plans immediately before his death.
The judgment is also significant for recognising that legislation enacted after Julian’s death—the Online Safety Act 2023 and Data (Use and Access) Act 2025—now provides coroners with tools they did not previously possess to compel disclosure from social media companies. This shifts the balance in coronial inquiries toward more complete investigation of digital evidence and platform conduct. For families of young people whose deaths may involve social media, the decision confirms that persistent investigation of investigative gaps, supported by expert evidence, can justify a fresh inquest and a more thorough public airing of the circumstances.
✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.