Police Investigation and Request for a New Inquest
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.