When a Person’s Digital Life Becomes Evidence: R (Roome) v Senior Coroner for Gloucestershire & TikTok Information Technologies UK Ltd [2026] EWHC 1808 (Admin) 

For many people, particularly young people, their digital life is inseparable from their daily life. Conversations, friendships, interests and even risk-taking behaviours increasingly exist online rather than in the physical world.

The Court’s decision in R (Roome) v Senior Coroner for Gloucestershire & TikTok Information Technologies UK Ltd [2026] EWHC 1808 (Admin) demonstrates that coronial investigations must evolve to reflect that reality. 

Background

Julian (“Jools”) Sweeney was 14 years old when he died in April 2022 after being found hanging in his bedroom. There was little evidence that he intended to end his life. He had been making plans with friends, no suicide note was found, and his family could offer no explanation for what had happened. 

The original inquest took place less than 6 months after his death. Conducted as a documentary inquest under rule 23 of the Coroners (Inquests) Rules 2013, it lasted under 30 minutes.

The evidence before the Assistant Coroner consisted largely of the police investigation, which concluded there was no third party involvement but could not explain why Jools had died. 

Following the inquest, Jools’ mother undertook extensive investigations of her own. Those enquiries uncovered significant information that had not been available to the Coroner.

Most notably, it emerged that the police investigation had not involved a forensic examination of Jools’ electronic devices. Instead, the Senior Investigating Officer carried out a manual review of material visible through ordinary user functions and accepted that she was neither a digital forensic specialist nor trained in forensic examination. Social media companies had not been asked to provide potentially relevant information, and investigators were unaware of additional TikTok accounts used by Jools. 

Further enquiries also identified evidence suggesting Jools was an exceptionally heavy TikTok user. There was lots of digital evidence that had not been explored, including social media interactions shortly before his death, and additional witnesses who Jools interacted with frequently on social media who had not been interviewed.

The High Court’s Decision

The High Court emphasised that this was not a criticism of the Assistant Coroner. Rather, the original inquest reflected the limited evidence that had been placed before the court.

It was concluded that a fresh inquest was desirable in the interests of justice because there had been both an insufficiency of inquiry and the discovery of significant new evidence within the meaning of section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988. 

The Court did not suggest that every allegation advanced by the family justified reopening the investigation. It observed that some arguments bordered on speculation.

The decision rested on the cumulative effect of several previously unexplored lines of enquiry, including:

• Limited examination of Jools’ electronic devices.
• Absence of disclosure from social media platforms.
• Previously unidentified TikTok accounts.
• Evidence of extensive TikTok use.
• Possible fraudulent social media contact shortly before his death.
• Additional witnesses who had not been interviewed.
• Location data that had not been investigated
• Further evidence from Jools’ mother about the circumstances in which he was found. 

Practical Implications

The decision is unlikely to open the floodgates to fresh inquests simply because the deceased used social media. This was an unusual case involving numerous investigative deficiencies coupled with substantial new evidence.

However, the judgment reflects an important shift in coronial practice.Where the deceased’s online activity may assist in answering the statutory question of how they came by their death, digital evidence should no longer be viewed as peripheral. Depending on the circumstances, it may be central to the investigation.

That does not mean every mobile phone must undergo exhaustive forensic analysis. Coroners remain under a duty to conduct investigations that are proportionate.

Nevertheless, where intent, state of mind or external influences are in issue (particularly in the deaths of children and young people) it may no longer be sufficient to rely solely upon a manual review of devices or limited police enquiries. 

The case serves as a reminder that a person’s digital footprint may now be every bit as significant as traditional documentary evidence. As more of our lives move online, coroners will increasingly need to consider whether social media platforms and digital records contain evidence capable of explaining how someone came by their death.

Roome is therefore less about TikTok, and more about the changing nature of evidence in modern coronial investigations. In appropriate cases, understanding a person’s digital life may be essential to understanding their death.

A copy of the judgement can be found here.

View Jade’s Barrister’s Profile here.