SEARCH RESULTS

On 26th May 2026, I joined a group of bereaved parents at Downing Street to meet with the Prime Minister. Between us, we have lost children to online harms including suicide, sextortion, dangerous online challenges, grooming, exploitation, and harmful content amplified by social media algorithms. We were not there as campaigners or politicians. We were there as parents. Parents whose children should still be here. One by one, we shared our children's stories. We spoke about who they were, what they loved, and the futures they should have had. We explained how social media platforms played a role in exposing them to harms that no child should face. These were not isolated incidents or tragic accidents. We described systems and features that are deliberately designed to maximise engagement, keep children online for longer, and encourage compulsive use. We discussed a number of harmful features that continue to exist across social media platforms, including: • Endless scrolling and infinite feeds • Algorithmic recommendation systems that push increasingly extreme or harmful content • Livestreaming features that can expose children to abuse, exploitation and harmful interactions • Direct messaging from strangers • Disappearing messages and content that leaves little evidence trail • Addictive engagement tools such as streaks, rewards and notifications designed to drive constant use • Recommendation engines that can rapidly lead vulnerable children towards self-harm, suicide, eating disorder or other harmful content • Features that make it easy for adults to contact, groom or exploit children • Weak age verification systems that are easily bypassed Our message to the Prime Minister was simple. If these companies can remove harmful features, they should do so. If they choose not to remove them, then those platforms should not be available to children. For too long, the debate has focused on banning specific apps. I believe we should focus on the harmful features themselves. If a platform can demonstrate that it is genuinely safe for children, then it should be allowed to operate. If it cannot, children should not be exposed to it. There is also growing discussion about raising the minimum age for social media access to 16. While I welcome the debate, my personal view is that 16 does not go far enough. I believe the age should be 18. The evidence increasingly shows that social media platforms are designed to influence behaviour, emotions and decision-making. We should not be exposing children to these powerful systems while their brains are still developing. No law will bring Jools back. No law will bring back any of the children whose parents sat around that table in Downing Street. But if we are prepared to listen, learn and act, we can prevent other families from experiencing the same devastation. That is why we continue to speak out. That is why we continue to fight. And that is why children's online safety must become a national priority.

Full letter...... Dear Parliamentarians, We are not writing as activists or advocates. We are writing as mothers and fathers whose children are no longer here. We are writing as parents who wake up every day to a silence that should not exist, who go to bed knowing there will be no goodnight, no laughter, no future with the child we raised and loved. The decision by MPs not to raise the age limit for harmful social media platforms to 16 was not just disappointing; it was devastating. The Government's offer, a consultation with no binding commitment and no fixed endpoint, is not an answer to a problem that has already claimed too many young lives. We have already lost our children. We cannot accept a process that risks losing more as discussions continue. We have watched technology companies fight every attempt at meaningful reform. We know how they operate. We know how easily protections are delayed, diluted or quietly dropped when there is no firm legislative commitment. We are also deeply concerned about the consultation itself. It was announced at the eleventh hour, in the days before your previous vote. It proposes an expert panel of academics but leaves little or no space for those on the frontline, those who see the consequences every single day, such as GPs, police officers and others dealing with the reality of harm as it unfolds. Beyond this, the Government is seeking powers that would allow future measures to be introduced with little or no opportunity for you, as elected representatives, to scrutinise or challenge them. We cannot ignore what this means. It means there is a real risk of half-measures. Measures that sound like action, but do not prevent harm. Measures that will not stop other families from becoming like ours, families who are left desperately sad and broken forever. And if those measures are passed in this way, you may not have the chance to stop them. More parents will lose their children in circumstances that could and should have been prevented. And while others move on, we are the ones left behind, serving a life sentence without our children. More families will sit in rooms filled with their child’s belongings, knowing they will never be used again. More birthdays will become anniversaries. And right now, across the UK, parents are not waiting for consultations or future reviews. They are watching their children scroll, message and engage on platforms they know are not safe. They are trying to set boundaries without the support of the law. They are fearful, overwhelmed and doing their best to protect their children in a system that is not designed to help them. They are asking you. They are pleading with you to act now. To give them something they do not currently have: the ability to say no, backed by law the ability to protect their children before harm happens, not after You voted for change in January, and you were right to do so. Lord Nash’s cross-party amendment provides time for implementation, involves the Chief Medical Officer, and represents a careful, considered and credible path forward. It is a commitment to act. That commitment is what is missing from the Government’s position. We are left with bedrooms that remain untouched, phones that will never light up again, and questions that will never be answered. We are not here because this is our profession. We are here because this is our reality. And we are asking you, with everything we have left, to act so that other parents do not have to live it too. Please vote today to reject the Government’s amendments. Please vote for Lord Nash’s cross-party amendment. Please vote to raise the age. Yours sincerely, Ellen Roome MBE (Mother of Jools Sweeney) and co-signed by the following bereaved parents: Amanda Stephens (Mother of Olly Stephens) Areti Nicolaou (Mother of Christoforos) Beth Layton (Mother to Elsa Layton-Jones) Eliza Gabb (Mother of Sky Gabb) Esther Ghey (Mother of Brianna Ghey) George Nicolaou (Father of Christoforos) Hollie Dance (Mother of Archie Battersbee) Ian Banyard (Father to Lacey Banyard) Lisa Kenevan (Mother of Isaac Kenevan) Lorin LaFave (Mother of Breck Bednar) Mariano Janin (Father of Mia Janin) Matthew Sweeney (Father of Jools Sweeney) Michael Absalom (Father of Kady Absalom) Michelle Barrett (Mother of Kibi Wade) Michelle Gardner (Stepmother of Kibi Wade) Penny Banyard (Mother to Lacey Banyard) Ruth Moss (Mother to Sophie Moss) Stuart Stephens (Father of Olly Stephens) Tanya Absalom (Mother of Kady Absalom) Terry Layton (Father to Elsa Layton-Jones)

Front Page of The Mirror 17th Feb 2026

Ellen Roome MBE is the founder of Jools' Law and an international campaigner for children's online safety. Learn about her journey, landmark legal case and campaign for change. Ellen Roome MBE A Mother. A Campaigner. A Voice for Children. I never imagined that losing my son would lead me into Parliament, the High Court, or meetings with government ministers and technology companies around the world. I would give anything for none of that to have happened. I would simply want Jools back. Jools was my only child. He died in April 2022 at the age of just 14. For almost two years after his death, I was simply trying to survive the unimaginable grief of losing my son. But when I eventually found the strength to begin asking questions about what had happened, I uncovered a system that was completely unprepared for the digital age. Social media companies hold an extraordinary amount of information about children's online lives, what they watched, searched for, interacted with and were recommended. Yet I discovered that this potentially vital evidence could disappear before coroners or investigators even knew it existed. I realised that families were being denied answers, not because the evidence never existed, but because nobody had ensured it was preserved. That discovery changed the course of my life. Turning Pain into Purpose I founded Jools' Law to ensure that no other bereaved family would face the barriers I encountered. What began as one mother's search for answers quickly became a national, and then international, campaign for change. Within just nine days, before Parliament was dissolved for the General Election, over 126,000 people signed my petition calling for change, triggering a Parliamentary debate and placing children's online safety firmly on the political agenda. Since then I have worked alongside ministers, parliamentarians, coroners, police forces, regulators, technology companies and bereaved families across the UK and internationally to reform the way digital evidence is handled following the death of a child. In 2026, that campaign achieved a historic breakthrough. The principles behind Jools' Law were incorporated into the Crime and Policing Act, requiring relevant online platforms to preserve a deceased child's digital data within five days of being notified of their death. For the first time, there is now a legal safeguard designed to prevent vital digital evidence from being lost before coroners and investigators have the opportunity to examine it. It is a change that will help countless families in the years ahead. My Fight for Jools Although Jools' Law changed the law, my own search for answers continued. In July 2026, the High Court granted my application for a fresh inquest into Jools' death after previously omitted social media evidence came to light. The original inquest was quashed, allowing Jools' digital life to be properly examined for the first time. The judgment is believed to be the first of its kind in England and Wales, recognising that potentially significant social media evidence had not been available to the original inquest. For me, this has never been about proving a particular outcome. It has always been about ensuring that every piece of relevant evidence is available so that the truth can be established. That is what every bereaved family deserves. Looking Beyond Jools' Law Securing the preservation of children's digital evidence was only the beginning. My work has increasingly focused on preventing tragedies before they happen. Children should not have harmful content pushed towards them by recommendation algorithms designed to maximise engagement. Technology companies have a responsibility to design products that place children's safety ahead of profit, and governments must ensure those responsibilities are properly enforced. I continue to campaign for stronger online protections, greater corporate accountability and meaningful reforms that reduce the risks children face every day online. The Personal Cost Campaigning has changed my life in ways I never expected. Alongside the campaign, I have faced profound personal challenges, the breakdown of relationships, and having to leave the home where Jools spent his final days and where he died. There have been moments when the weight of grief, legal battles and public scrutiny have brought me to my knees. But if speaking openly about my journey helps another family avoid this heartbreak, then every difficult step has purpose. A documentary currently in production follows this journey, capturing not only the campaign but also the personal reality of rebuilding a life after unimaginable loss. You will see the victories. You will also see the moments when I thought I could not carry on. Both are part of the story. Recognition In the King's New Year Honours List 2026, I was appointed a Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE) for services to children's online safety. While I am deeply honoured by that recognition, my greatest achievement is knowing that Jools' Law will help families long after my own journey is over. Why I Continue People often ask where I find the strength to keep going. The truth is simple. I don't have a choice. Every time another family contacts me after losing their child, I am reminded why this work matters. Jools' Law was never just about my son. It is about every child who deserves to be safe online. Every family who deserves answers. And every parent who should never have to fight as hard as I have simply to discover the truth about what happened to their child. That is why I will continue.

Read the story behind the new inquest into Jools Sweeney's death. Discover how missing online evidence led to a landmark High Court ruling and inspired Jools' Law to improve investigations following a child's death. Police Investigation and High Court Hearing “I will keep going until I find the truth about what happened to my son and make sure no other parent has to fight this hard for answers.”— Ellen Roome, Jools’ Mum High Court Orders Fresh Inquest into the Death of Jools in Landmark Ruling On Thursday 16 July 2026, the High Court, sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, granted my application for a fresh inquest into the death of my son, Jools. This is a landmark decision that I believe is the first of its kind in England and Wales. The High Court ordered a fresh inquest because important digital evidence was not properly obtained or examined during the original investigation. The judgment recognises that, where online evidence may be central to understanding a child's death, a failure to preserve and investigate that evidence can justify reopening an inquest. I believe this decision will provide a pathway for other bereaved families who find themselves in a similar position. The High Court found that there had been an insufficiency of inquiry during the original investigation and that there was also new evidence which justified a fresh inquest in the interests of justice. The Court ordered that the original inquest be quashed and that a completely fresh inquest should take place. For more than four years I have been searching for answers about what happened to my beautiful son. From the very beginning, I believed there were unanswered questions about his online activity. Although Jools' phone was manually examined, it was never subjected to a full forensic examination. The police did not uncover that Jools had multiple social media accounts, and his Snapchat account and activity were not reviewed. This meant that potentially important evidence and lines of enquiry were missed. Through my own investigations, supported by experts, further evidence came to light that had never been available to the original inquest. As a result, the original inquest had to reach conclusions without access to information that may have helped explain the circumstances leading up to Jools' death. The High Court recognised that this missing evidence justified reopening the inquest. Why this matters This case is about far more than my family. Across the country, bereaved families have faced the same devastating reality. Their children have died, yet potentially crucial digital evidence has been lost before anyone knew to preserve it. Today's online world leaves behind a digital footprint. That can include search history, recommendations, videos watched, messages, interactions, algorithms, deleted content, metadata and much more. When a child dies unexpectedly, that information can be critical to understanding what happened. The judgment also recognised that there was limited evidence that Jools was unhappy, let alone suicidal, at the time of his death. It was against that background that the Court concluded that further investigation was both necessary and in the interests of justice. Without access to digital evidence, families may never receive the answers they deserve. Jools' Law and the Crime and Policing Act 2026 Throughout my campaign, many people, including me, began referring to my proposed changes as "Jools' Law." While that name has become widely recognised, it is not the official legal title. The measures were introduced by the Government as amendments to the Crime and Policing Act 2026, creating a new legal requirement for relevant online data to be preserved within five days of a child's death, ensuring that potentially vital digital evidence is not routinely deleted before investigators and coroners have the opportunity to obtain it. The purpose of these amendments is simple but vital: to ensure that potentially crucial digital evidence is preserved before it can be permanently deleted, giving coroners and investigators the best possible opportunity to establish the truth and provide bereaved families with the answers they deserve. Although these changes came too late to preserve Jools' online data, they will help protect evidence for future families and prevent others from facing the same heartbreaking situation. The High Court's decision demonstrates exactly why these reforms were needed. What happens next A new Coroner at Gloucestershire Coroner's Court will now be appointed to conduct a completely fresh inquest. One of the key differences this time is that the legal framework has changed. The Coroner can now use the powers available under Section 101 of the Online Safety Act 2023, which was not in force when Jools died in 2022, to submit a request to Ofcom. Ofcom can then issue a Coroner Information Notice requiring regulated online platforms to provide information relevant to the inquest. This means that information held by platforms, such as account details, messages, content, search history, recommendations, metadata, account activity and other relevant server-side information, can be obtained where it is relevant to establishing the facts surrounding Jools' death. My hope has always been simple: to establish, as far as possible, what happened to Jools. Thank you This has been an incredibly emotional and difficult journey. I would also like to express my heartfelt thanks to Mark Bramah , who has given countless hours of his time, advice and unwavering support, often behind the scenes when no one else saw what was happening. His belief in this campaign, together with his expertise in safeguarding, has been invaluable. I am also proud to serve as an Advisory Board Member of Bramah Safeguarding, an organisation committed to improving safeguarding practice and protecting vulnerable people. You can learn more about the important work Mark and his team do at https://bramahsafeguarding.org . I also owe an enormous debt of gratitude to Mick Randall of Fedora Investigations. Mick brought decades of investigative experience to my case and never stopped searching for answers for Jools. His professionalism, determination and generosity have played a significant part in getting us to where we are today. You can learn more about Fedora Investigations at https://www.fedorainvestigations.com . I want to thank my outstanding legal team, Harry Lambert of Outer Temple Chambers and Gary Miller , together with the team at Mishcon de Reya, who both acted pro bono with one clear goal: to help obtain answers for Jools. Finally, I want to thank my family, friends, the fellow bereaved parents who stood beside me in my journey and in court and every single person who signed the petition, shared my campaign or sent me messages of support. The judgment also acknowledged the tireless investigations I have undertaken as Jools' mum. I never wanted to become an investigator. I simply wanted answers about what happened to my son. This judgment is not the end of the journey. It is the beginning of a new search for the truth. My hope is that this case will help ensure no bereaved family is ever again denied answers because vital digital evidence was lost before anyone thought to preserve it. July 2026 14 July - High Court Hearing: 16 July 2026 I will be appearing before the High Court with my lawyers asking a judge to quash Jools' original inquest and order a fresh one. If the application is successful, it is believed to be the first time in England and Wales that a child's inquest has been reopened because potential social media evidence was not obtained or examined during the original investigation. For me, this is about one thing: finally having the chance to find out what happened to our beautiful son. A new inquest would allow a coroner to use legal powers that did not exist in 2022 to obtain and examine Jools' digital data. After more than four years of fighting for answers, I hope this hearing will be an important step towards discovering the truth, not only for Jools, but for every bereaved family who deserves a full and thorough investigation into the death of their child. June 2026 14 June - We are expecting the High Court hearing to hopefully quash Jools' inquest Mid July 2026. 2 June - There has been a significant development in my efforts to seek answers about Jools' death. Both the Coroner and TikTok have confirmed that they do not intend to oppose my application to the High Court for a fresh inquest. This is very encouraging news and means that the application is now proceeding unopposed. We are currently awaiting a hearing date from the High Court. At that hearing, we hope the Court will quash the original inquest and order that a new inquest be held, allowing all relevant evidence to be properly considered. While there is still a process to follow, this marks an important step forward in the search for answers. April 2026 2 April - I’m pleased to share that we have now issued proceedings in the High Court seeking a new inquest for Jools, with Mishcon de Reya & Harry Lambert of Outer Temple Chambers representing me. We don’t yet have a hearing date, but I am hopeful this will move forward quickly. I want answers as to what happened. Gary Miller shared this below on his LinkedIn page..... March 2026 16 March - Police Investigation Update We are currently engaging with Gloucestershire Police as part of their ongoing review into the original investigation into Jools’ death. Mark Bramah (who is supporting us) has written formally on our behalf, raising serious concerns about the handling of the review. These include: Key questions still not being answered A lack of transparency and clarity Concerns about communication and delays The impact of requests made to our family The letter makes clear that the assurances of openness, transparency and accountability must be met if confidence in this review is to be restored. We await a response. 13 March - The Attorney General has granted permission, issuing a Fiat , allowing me to apply to the High Court for a new inquest into the death of Jools. This important step means the High Court will now consider whether the original inquest should be set aside so the full circumstances of Jools’ death, including potential digital evidence, can be properly examined. February 2026 25 February - I formally submitted a complaint to the IOPC regarding the original investigation into Jools’ death by Gloucestershire Constabulary . This is not something any parent should have to do. In our complaint, I have raised serious concerns about the failure to robustly and comprehensively investigate the circumstances surrounding Jools’ death, including failures during the golden hour to properly secure key digital evidence. I have set out concerns that: • The investigation was not conducted to the standards set out by the College of Policing and Gloucestershire Constabulary’s own policies for dealing with a Sudden and Unexpected Death in Childhood investigation. • Reasonable lines of enquiry were not properly identified or followed through. • Key investigative hypotheses were not considered or explored. • Digital devices were not secured and examined with the urgency and expertise required. • Decision-making was not properly recorded. • The approach by one particular officer at the scene lacked investigative rigour and basic humanity. At the time, I was a mother in shock who had just found my 14 year old son. I trusted that everything that should have been done would have been done. I now know that critical opportunities were missed. The way our son’s life was tragically cut short deserves a thorough investigation, and I will continue to push until families like ours can have confidence that no stone is left unturned. 17 February - Letter received from the police saying yesterday's phone call was a welfare check - If this were a welfare call, it raises serious questions as to why such a sensitive and potentially alarming line of enquiry would be introduced in that moment. The letter goes on to explain that although a significant amount of digital material has already been examined, the police intend to conduct further keyword searches as part of their ongoing review. They have invited us, as Jools’ parents, to suggest our own keywords, usernames or phrases to be included in those searches. This has been presented as a collaborative step, intended to provide reassurance and ensure nothing is overlooked. Being asked, as parents, to sit down almost four years later and consider what words might be associated with the circumstances surrounding our son’s death is not a simple administrative task. It is a deeply difficult exercise. Matt shared his thoughts on what we have been asked to do: "This exercise was profoundly distressing, emotionally exhausting, and deeply upsetting. In the absence of any Police review of the data taken from Jools’ devices in 2022, or history his activity on social media platforms in the period leading up to 13th April 2022, I was placed in what I felt was an unacceptable position of having to independently consider all potential circumstances that could lead a young teenager to take their own life. This was not limited to Jools alone, as the absence of evidential analysis means we do not yet know the full context or history of his personal online activity. This process began with, once again, considering the devastating possibility that he may have intentionally ended his life - requiring me to confront issues such as him suffering with depression and mental health issues. It then extended into even more distressing territory: having to imagine and mentally process scenarios in which Jools may have been in contact with strangers who subjected him to coercion, pressure, compulsion, abuse, exploitation, sexual exploitation, gang or county lines involvement, betrayal by a friend or someone known to him, bribery, or financial leverage etc. So, having spent most of an afternoon forcing myself to contemplate these potential horrors in Jools’ life, I was left at the end of the day with a stream of distressing and intrusive thoughts. Surely this cannot reasonably be described as a trauma-informed approach by the Police when liaising with the family? (of a child who died almost four years ago). How do the Police now intend to acknowledge and address the additional trauma that this process has created? I have no doubt that Ellen is experiencing the same, or similar, emotional and psychological impact" 16 February – Ellen received a call from Gloucestershire Police while she was standing alone on a train on her way home from the BBC, following progress on Jools’ Law. The officer knew this. During the conversation, the officer said she needed to ask a question arising from footage which showed a query about whether the back door had been unlocked on the day Jools died. To be asked this question almost four years later, while alone on a train, was shocking. She suggested that there is now video footage that raises questions about whether a door being unlocked inevitably causes distress. Standing alone on that train, Ellen’s immediate thought was whether this implied a new line of investigation; were they saying someone else was in the house with Jools that night? The explanations then changed several times during the same call. The officer initially stated the issue had been seen on the family’s CCTV. Ellen immediately challenged this, as she is aware that Gloucestershire Police did not take or watch ANY CCTV footage from the property, other than the single clip voluntarily provided of Jools saying goodbye to Monty at the front door. The officer then stated that it must have come from CCTV footage sent to the Police. Ellen clarified again that only one clip was ever sent and that the Police never bothered reviewing any of the other footage. The officer then suggested it may have been body-worn camera footage. This is particularly concerning, as Ellen had previously been informed in correspondence from Gloucestershire Police that the docking station for the relevant body-worn cameras was not functioning, and she was therefore under the understanding that no body-worn video footage was available. Within one call, three different explanations were given. After almost 4 years, and given the sensitivity of this case, it is essential that an accurate and consistent account be provided of the evidence available, the footage retained, and how it is being reviewed. 9 February – Baroness Kidron wrote to Lord Hermer KC, the Attorney General, chasing his permission (a fiat) to apply to the High Court for a new inquest into the death of my son, Jools. I am asking for a new inquest because the original inquest into Jools’ death lasted just 23 minutes. No witnesses were called. No meaningful evidence was gathered. Crucially, Jools’ online activity was not examined properly. Since that inquest, serious new information has emerged. I am deeply grateful to the many peers, MPs, experts, and organisations who have signed this letter in support. Thank you in particular to Paul Wright of Alliance 4 Children for organising many of the signatures and helping bring so many voices together. 2 February – I spent 4½ hours giving a video statement, recounting everything I could possibly remember about the death of Jools. I was asked to go through every sight, every sound, every smell. To take myself back to that night in a level of detail no parent should ever have to revisit. Taking myself back there was not just upsetting; it was overwhelming. After the statement ended, I suffered flashbacks for the rest of the evening. My mind and body were still there, reliving it all. It was exhausting. Painful. So incredibly hard. What has left me completely shocked is learning that when Jools died, not a single statement was taken from anyone. Not from me. Not from his dad. Not from his friends. Not from anyone. How does a 14-year-old child die, and not one single statement is taken? I was in no fit state at that time when he died to question what was happening or to imagine that something so basic would be overlooked. As a parent, you assume the fundamentals will be done. You assume someone is doing their job while you are in shock and grief. But they weren’t. Those first hours and days matter. Memories are clearer. Context exists. Evidence exists. And yet nothing was properly recorded then. Now, years later, Matt has to give his statement. Jools’ friends will have to give theirs too. All of us are being asked to remember details that should have been captured at the time, when the memories were still intact. January 2026 31 January – The police investigation is ongoing. I understand that officers have now requested information from Jools’ school. Matt and I have also been asked to give video statements . Mine is scheduled for Monday, 2 February. This will be extremely difficult, as it will involve reliving Jools’ last night on camera with the police. We were never asked to provide video statements at the time of his death. 12 January – The BBC came to film me about my busy week, and whilst with me, they received confirmation from Gloucestershire Police that they do indeed have the initial forensic imaging of Jools' phone from 26th April 2022, which had NEVER previously been reviewed. I'm shocked that I heard this from the BBC instead of the police, but delighted that they do, in fact, have it. 7 January – Email received from Assistant Chief Constable Richard Ocone at Gloucestershire Police. They have now formally confirmed that new investigative resources have been allocated to review outstanding lines of enquiry in relation to Jools’ death. A massive thank you to Mark Bramah & Mick Randall for their work in achieving this for us. Families should not have to fight for years to trigger basic investigative action. Progress should be automatic, immediate, and routine. That is why systemic reform is still needed and why Jools’ Law matters. December 2025 23 December - Met with Senior Investigating Officer, Gary Haskins , to discuss the review into Jools' case. This meeting took place a month after Gloucestershire Constabulary confirmed it would undertake a review. I remain concerned that meaningful investigation has not yet begun. He informed us that we will hear more by mid January. Yet more waiting for us. 17 December - J. Paul Wright at Alliance 4 Children sent a letter to the Attorney General in support of my application (made by Harry Lambert at Outer Temple Chambers ) for a new inquest into the death of my son, Jools. He brought together 23 MPs and Peers from across Parliament, spanning parties and the Cross Benches. I am deeply grateful to Paul, the Alliance 4 Children team, and to every MP, Peer and organisation who has put their name to this request and stood with us in the search for truth, accountability and learning that could protect other children in the future. Thank you. New powers under the Online Safety Act 2023 and the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 mean that coroners can now obtain a deceased child’s digital and social media data. These powers did not exist at the time of Jools’ inquest, and I do not feel that his inquest, which lasted just 23 minutes, without the benefit of examining the full evidence, was appropriate. This letter sets out why, in light of the changed legal framework and the strong public interest in understanding the role of digital harm in children’s lives, a new inquest is both necessary and justified. Additionally, Gloucestershire Constabulary has confirmed that my next meeting with them will take place on 23 December. It has now been a month since they were provided with the independent Fedora report from Mick Randall and the work from Mark Bramah (Child Safeguarding Expert), and I remain concerned that meaningful work has not yet begun. I feel that, because Jools is dead, this is not being treated as a priority, despite the report raising new lines of enquiry with them. This is not just about Jools. It is about ensuring our systems keep pace with children’s realities, and that digital evidence is never again ignored when a child dies. That is why I have been working in Parliament to change the law, so no other bereaved parent has to face what we have. 16 December - Saqib Bhatti MBE MP for Meriden and Solihull East has agreed to write to AG to back my application. I have had several others confirm to their constituents that they will support my application (but I dont have the letters to share), which is most kind. 12 December - Senior Investigating Officer Gary Haskins has arranged a meeting on 23 December with me, Mark Bramah and Mick Randall to discuss the independent review into Jools’ case. This meeting takes place nearly a month after Gloucestershire Constabulary confirmed it would undertake a review. The meeting will be the first opportunity to understand what work, if any, has been carried out since the review was announced, how the Fedora report and original case material are being examined, and whether any new lines of enquiry have been identified. 9 December – Continuing to ask MPs and Peers from the House of Lords to back my application with the AG. My MP, Max Wilkinson, has sent a letter of support, as have Baroness Beeban Kidron & Baroness Diana Barran. 8 December – My application to the Attorney General (AG) for a FIAT is now in. Thank you to Harry Lambert, Outer Temple Chambers for all his work preparing this. 1 December – Ellen on BBC Breakfast providing an update as to police involvement (play video below) November 2025 28 November – Gloucestershire Constabulary has confirmed a full independent review of Jools’ case, led by newly appointed Senior Investigating Officer Gary Haskins , formerly Head of Major Crime. The review will examine all original case material alongside Fedora’s 23-page report, pursue any new lines of enquiry, and reassess the original outcome. Police have committed to a rigorous, transparent process. 21 November – A positive meeting was held with Gloucestershire Constabulary, who were genuinely caring in their approach. We are now awaiting their formal response, giving them the necessary time to review Fedora’s 23-page independent report. They have confirmed they will reply by 28 November. 2 November – Meeting confirmed for 21 November with Assistant Chief Constable Richard Ocone ; Detective Superintendent Steve Bean (Head of Public Protection); Mick Randall (Fedora Investigations); Mark Bramah (former Senior Investigating Officer); Matt Sweeney (Jools’ dad); and me. October 2025 24 October – Emailed Assistant Chief Constable Richard Ocone at Gloucestershire Police to request a meeting to discuss major concerns about Jools’ case. 16 October – Received a comprehensive 23-page report from Mick Randall (Fedora Investigations ). It provides an independent and detailed review of how Gloucestershire Police handled Jools’ case and highlights serious failings. September 2025 7 September – A highly experienced forensic specialist re-examined Jools’ devices. 5 September – I’ve written a full ‘brain dump’ of Jools’ last day . Every moment, every tiny detail I can remember, laid out in a timeline. It was incredibly painful to relive, but the experts asked me to do this so they could piece together what happened, and so much was overlooked in the original investigation. Even something as simple as Jools wearing different clothes when I found him compared to earlier in the day… why wasn’t this noticed? Is it relevant? I don’t know. But now, I must let the experts do their job. I am beyond grateful for their kindness in helping me. 4 September – Had a two-hour meeting with two former Senior Investigating Officers and my barrister, Harry Lambert . For the first time, I finally felt heard. What I have always believed was overlooked has now been confirmed as entirely reasonable and correct. Their words, not mine. August 2025 31 August 2025 – I’m now gathering every piece of evidence and paperwork to submit my application to the Attorney General. On Thursday, I have an important meeting with a former Senior Investigating Officer and a forensic expert, both of whom have kindly offered to help me review the police report. It’s a huge step forward — finally looking at what was done, and what wasn’t, at the original inquest with people who truly understand the process. All of this will then go to my barrister , who is also a coroner , and has generously offered to represent me without charge . I am deeply grateful for the people who have come forward to help, but it’s still such a painful journey, piecing everything together and wondering how so much could have been missed. 19 August 2025 – I finally received the police report . Sadly, it contains no new information. I have sent it straight to my lawyers for review, but it’s hard not to feel disheartened. Every delay and every blank page is another reminder of how far I still have to go to uncover the truth about what happened to Jools. 18 August 2025 – I emailed the Minister, Rt Hon Dame Diana Johnson DBE , to complain that Gloucestershire Police had failed to respond to my request for the overdue report and now appeared to be ignoring my emails. 9 August 2025 – Back on 7 July, Gloucestershire Constabulary’s Legal Services Department told me I would receive the police report on Jools’ devices by 4 August . Then I was told it would arrive by the end of this week, which I assumed meant yesterday. Perhaps their definition of “the end of the week” is different. Either way, the report has still not arrived. I have chased again. The waiting never seems to end. July 2025 23 July 2025 – I received a letter from Minister Alex Davies-Jones at the Ministry of Justice . She wrote that while she and her colleagues deeply sympathise with my loss and my determination to find the truth, they cannot formally support my application for a fresh inquest. The decision must be made independently by the Attorney General , who alone can grant a Fiat (permission) for a new investigation. Although disappointing, she acknowledged the importance of my campaign and my ongoing efforts to seek answers. 17 July 2025 – I wrote again to Rt Hon Peter Kyle MP , raising my concerns about the app LMK and about WhatsApp . The children’s codes do not cover these private messaging platforms in the Online Safety Act because they are encrypted and not public platforms. Yet they are often used by predators to move children from open platforms into private chats, away from safety and oversight. This loophole continues to put children at risk. 16 July 2025 – Rt Hon Peter Kyle MP , Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation & Technology , replied to me, and you can see his letter here. 7 July 2025 – The Police Legal Team confirmed that I would receive their full report by 4 August. June to July 2025 2 July 2025 – I wrote to Gloucestershire Constabulary’s Legal Team requesting complete clarity on what data was reviewed, how, and when. I also asked which of Jools’ social media accounts the police located before the inquest. I can only hope this doesn’t take another nine months to receive, as it did when I first asked for the police file on Jools. When that file finally came, much of it was redacted. I raised this with Rt Hon Dame Diana Johnson DBE MP, Minister of State for Policing and Crime Prevention , and was told: “When responding to a data subject access request pursuant to the Data Protection Act 2018, the law allows law enforcement authorities, in this case the Gloucestershire Constabulary, to restrict the response (for example by redacting) if that is necessary and proportionate for a range of circumstances, including to avoid prejudicing the prevention, detection or investigation of criminal offences or to protect the rights and freedoms of others.” It was another reminder of how hard it is for parents to access the very information that could explain what happened to their children. 26 June 2025 – I wrote to the following ministers asking for their support in my application to the Attorney General for a new inquest for Jools: Alex Davies-Jones, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice Dame Diana Johnson DBE MP, Minister of State for Policing and Crime Prevention Rt Hon Peter Kyle MP , Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology Baroness Maggie Jones , Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, DSIT May to June 2025 6 June 2025 – The Coroner returned several documents. The next step is to obtain statements from Jools’ friends. 27 May 2025 – I wrote formally to the Coroner. After Jools’ inquest , I only ever received the final inquest pack, but lawyers have since told me there should have been more documentation shared. I’ve asked to see the full records and have requested that the Coroner support my application for a fresh inquest . Jools’ inquest file had been archived, so I am now waiting for it to be returned. It’s another slow, emotional process, but one that I have to see through to the end. How can you help?

Go behind the scenes with Ellen Roome MBE and Jools' Law. Discover exclusive photos, videos and stories from the campaign, media appearances, Parliament and the journey to improve children's online safety. Behind the Scenes