Molly Russell was a typical teenage girl. She liked Harry Potter and horse-riding. She was juggling homework, starring in an upcoming school play, and keeping up friendships, all with the support of her loving family in northwest London.
But in November 2017, Molly took her own life at the age of 14.
An inquest revealed Molly engaged with a huge number of posts on Instagram related to depression, self-harm or suicide in the months before her death.
The coroner’s findings concluded that viewing material on social media “contributed to her death in a more than minimal way”, after suffering from depression and “the negative effects of online content”.
Sky News has found that at least one piece of content identical to that saved by Molly prior to her death, and which glorifies suicide, remained on Instagram this week.
The post was found by searching a term related to a method of suicide – a term Instagram promotes as part of its suggested searches feature and which is available to all users over the age of 13.
Warning: Readers may find this story distressing.
A digital trail
The inquest examined Molly’s social media activity in the six months prior to her death.
Sky News has chosen not to show the posts Molly engaged with, given some of their harmful content.
Among the 2,100 images related to depression or suicide Molly saved or liked on Instagram, the most benign posts show images, phrases, and poetry relating to feeling sad and depressed.
The most disconcerting ones show graphic images of self-harm and others which glorify suicide.
Many of the posts refer to worries around a lack of confidence, body image, and failing to meet family expectations – anxieties likely to particularly resonate with teenagers.
They reveal a picture of a young woman struggling with severe depression, suffering in silence while appearing outwardly happy.
They raise a crucial question: whether Molly’s online activity was a reflection of her state of mind, or if the content she was viewing and the algorithms that promoted it were more directly responsible for her distress.
Molly’s timeline – including a tweet to JK Rowling
The exact timeline of when and how Molly began engaging with this material is unknown.
Only six months of data from before her death in 2017 was available from Instagram, as information from before this time is no longer held on its servers.
Molly appears to have been engaging with suicide-related posts throughout this period. Instagram also could not provide information on all content Molly viewed or searched for, only those posts she interacted with, meaning she likely came across far more material than revealed by the inquest.
Instagram was not the only site through which Molly accessed harmful content. Pinterest, another image sharing social platform, sent emails to Molly highlighting posts under the topic of “depression” and “sad depression quotes”.
It was promoting the type of content she had been viewing on her account, an example of how algorithms used by social media companies can run the risk of pushing extreme content on to users as they seek more engagement.
A Pinterest executive gave evidence to the inquiry and admitted that at the time Molly was using the service, it was “not safe”.
Molly also set up a Twitter account, separate to another one that her family were aware of, which she used to follow celebrities who had spoken out about their problems with depression. Tragically, it was through this anonymous account that Molly made some of the few public admissions of her own struggles.
She told JK Rowling, who with almost 14 million followers receives large numbers of mentions: “My mind has been full of suicidal thoughts for a while but reading Harry Potter and the world you created is my escape.”
Image: Judson Hoffman of Pinterest and (below) Elizabeth Lagone of Meta gave evidence at the inquest
The debate over freedom of expression
It was suggested during the inquest that some online content related to depression, self-harm, or suicide could have some positive effects.
A representative for Meta, Instagram’s parent company, told the inquiry online spaces that touch upon this area may allow those suffering to express themselves and build a community of people experiencing similar struggles.
It is possible Molly found some comfort in following celebrities on Twitter who had been open about their own difficulties and had overcome them.
But Molly’s father told the inquiry he believes, in general, the content his daughter viewed online “normalised” the issue of suicide. He felt its unrelenting bleakness would likely worsen the mental health of anyone looking at it.
The differing views reflect a genuine debate around the extent someone should have the freedom to post about their troubles and those of others online, against the risk this activity could encourage some to harm themselves.
But separate to this issue, details of Molly’s online activity reveal she was still able to engage with harmful posts on Instagram and Pinterest despite the fact they violated the companies’ policies.
The debate around what is considered harmful becomes redundant if content that violates social media companies’ rules cannot be accurately identified and removed.
This was a worry raised by Frances Haugen, a former Meta employee, in her evidence to a committee of MPs considering the draft Online Safety Bill in 2021, which is still proceeding through parliament.
She told the committee that Facebook, another Meta company, was only able to identify 3-5% of misinformation and that Instagram was the most dangerous social media platform due to its focus on body image and social comparison.
“Facebook’s own reports say that it is not just that Instagram is dangerous for teenagers; it is actually more dangerous than other forms of social media.” she warned.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:52
2021: Ex-Facebook whistleblower’s warning
‘Remember who Molly really was’
Some progress has been made in improving automated systems that pick up dangerous content.
Elizabeth Lagone, Meta’s representative at the inquiry, said online harm was an “evolving” area. Instagram does, for example, point users towards a help page if they search some phrases relating to emotional distress. Some other search terms are blocked completely.
However, Sky News found one search term relating to suicide, which is blocked by Instagram, could be accessed simply by typing in part of the term and selecting from the recommended search list that appears.
Worryingly, it means people searching grammatically similar phrases, with no connection to suicide, could be directed towards harmful content.
Using this search, one poem Molly saved to her account shortly before her death, and which glorifies suicide, appeared in the search results.
Instagram has taken down this post and the recommended search term after being alerted by Sky News. It is an example of the type of harmful content that still exists on social media and the dark corner of the internet Molly inhabited before her death.
Because of this, Molly’s family made clear at the inquiry that the digital trail she left behind, and who she really was, shouldn’t be confused.
“We, her family, think it is essential to remember who Molly really was, so we can each hold a picture in our minds of a caring individual, full of love and bubbling with excitement for what should have lay ahead in her life.”
Anyone feeling emotionally distressed or suicidal can call Samaritans for help on 116 123 or email jo@samaritans.org.
A 13-year-old girl and a 15-year-old boy have been found guilty of the manslaughter of an 80-year-old dog walker who was attacked in a Leicestershire park.
Bhim Kohli was found lying on the ground in Franklin Park in Braunstone Town, near Leicester, on 1 September last year and died the next evening of a spinal cord injury.
The grandfather, who was attacked just yards from his home, suffered a broken neck and rib fractures consistent with “something heavy striking the rib cage”, the trial heard.
Image: Bhim Kohli
The boy, who was 14 at the time of the attack, and the girl, who was 12, cannot be named because of their ages.
During a six-week trial at Leicester Crown Court, jurors heard that Mr Kohli was racially abused before the incident.
The girl had also taken a photograph of Mr Kohli in Franklin Park a week before, the court heard.
The jury deliberated for almost seven hours before reaching unanimous verdicts on the pair, who will be sentenced next month.
Mr Kohli was shoved to the ground and slapped in the face with a shoe by a boy wearing a balaclava, the trial heard.
Image: Police at the scene in Franklin Park last September. Pic: PA
A police report into the incident included a statement from a witness who described “seeing the boy forcefully pushing the old man on to his back”.
The jury heard the witness described the old man as “ending up on the floor screaming”.
A statement from PC Rachelle Pereira said: “Mr Kohli was repeatedly screaming out in pain, shouting out ‘My neck’.”
Her statement said the witness told the police officer she saw a young white boy wearing a black balaclava “shove the old man to the floor and sprint”.
The boy, who denied inflicting the fatal injuries, told a friend he would go “on the run” to Hinckley, in Leicestershire, the day after the attack but was arrested by police minutes later while hiding in a bush, the court heard.
In a letter written two months after the attack, the court heard the boy said “I did it and I accept I’m doing time” and “I kinda just needed anger etc releasing”.
Mr Justice Turner remanded the boy in custody and granted the girl bail, but told her his decision “should not be taken as any indication as to the sentence when the time comes”.
The boy had also been charged with murder, but was found not guilty by the jury on that count.
The defendants, who sat in the dock for the first time since their trial began, appeared upset as the verdicts were given.
This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.
Please refresh the page for the fullest version.
You can receive breaking news alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News app. You can also follow @SkyNews on X or subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.
Donald Trump’s tariffs could disrupt the supply of medicines into the UK, the health secretary has warned.
Wes Streeting said the government was “constantly watching and acting on this situation” after the US president refused to back down from the punitive policy, despite turmoil in the markets.
His actions have sparked fears of a global trade war, with the UK’s benchmark stock market index, the FTSE 100, only just witnessing a slight rise this morning after three days of steep losses.
While the reciprocal tariffs have not yet included pharmaceutical products, there are concerns this could change in the near future.
Speaking to Wilfred Frost on Sky News Breakfast, the health secretary said that even before the US president’s tariff agenda – which has seen him impose a 10% baseline tax on imports from all nations – there had been “issues with medicines production and supply internationally”.
“We are constantly watching and acting on this situation to try and get medicines into the country, to make sure we’ve got availability, to show some flexibility in terms of how medicines are dispensed, to deal with shortages,” he said.
“But whether it’s medicines, whether it’s parts for manufacturing, whether it’s… the ability of businesses in this country to turn a profit, this is an extremely turbulent situation.”
Mr Streeting, who was speaking following the announcement that the government has recruited more than 1,500 new GPs since 1 October, said the steps taken by Mr Trump were “unprecedented in terms of global trade”.
“As ever in terms of medicines, there’s a number of factors at play,” he said.
“There have been challenges in terms of manufacturing, challenges in terms of distribution, and if we start to see tariffs kicking in, that’s another layer of challenge, but we watch this situation extremely closely.
“We work on a daily basis to make sure that we have the medicine supply this country needs.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:42
Trump’s tariffs: What you need to know
Sir Keir Starmer had been seeking to secure an exemption for the UK from Mr Trump’s punitive tariffs.
But last week, the UK was hit with both the 10% baseline tariff on all imports and the 25% tariff on all cars imported to the US.
The latter tariff could prove particularly damaging for the UK, owing to the fact that the US is the car sector’s largest single market by country – accounting for £6.4bn worth of car exports in 2023.
While the 2030 ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars remains in place, regulations around manufacturing targets on electric cars and vans will be altered to help firms during the transition.
Luxury supercar firms such as Aston Martin and McLaren will still be allowed to keep producing petrol cars beyond the 2030 date, while petrol and diesel vans will also be allowed to be sold until 2035, along with hybrids and plug-in hybrid cars.
Prince Harry has arrived at court for the start of a two-day hearing about his security arrangements.
The Duke of Sussex is appealing a ruling dismissing his challenge to the level of police protection he receives in the UK, and his case will be heard in front of three judges across Tuesday and Wednesday.
The prince’s dispute goes all the way back to 2020, and is one of several high-profile legal battles he has brought to the High Court in recent years.
So what is the case about, what has happened in the courts so far and what’s happening now?
What is the dispute over?
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:24
Harry’s legal battle over security
Harry received full, publicly funded security protection until he stepped back from royal duties and moved to America with wife Meghanin March 2020.
Once he moved away, the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) – which has delegated responsibility from the Home Office for royal security – decided he would not receive the same level of protection.
But Harry has argued that his private protection team in the US does not have access to UK intelligence information which is needed to keep his wife and children safe.
He therefore wants access to his previous level of security when in the country, but wants to fund the security himself, rather than ask taxpayers to foot the bill after he stepped down as a senior member of the Royal Family.
Image: The Duke and Duchess of Sussex in Canada in February. Pic: Aaron Chown/PA Wire
The duke’s legal representative said in a previous statement: “The UK will always be Prince Harry’s home and a country he wants his wife and children to be safe in.
“With the lack of police protection comes too great a personal risk.
“In the absence of such protection, Prince Harry and his family are unable to return to his home.”
The legal representative added: “Prince Harry inherited a security risk at birth, for life. He remains sixth in line to the throne, served two tours of combat duty in Afghanistan, and in recent years his family has been subjected to well-documented neo-Nazi and extremist threats.
“While his role within the institution has changed, his profile as a member of the Royal Family has not. Nor has the threat to him and his family.”
What’s happened in court so far?
He filed a claim for a judicial review of the Home Office’s decision shortly after it was made, with the first hearing in the High Court coming in February 2022.
At the start of that hearing, Robert Palmer QC, for the Home Office, told the court the duke’s offer of private funding was “irrelevant”, despite his safety concerns.
In written submissions, he said: “Personal protective security by the police is not available on a privately financed basis, and Ravec does not make decisions on the provision of such security on the basis that any financial contribution could be sought or obtained to pay for it.”
He added Ravec had attributed to the duke “a form of exceptional status” where he is considered for personal protective security by the police, “with the precise arrangements being dependent on the reason for his presence in Great Britain and by reference to the functions he carries out when present”.
The barrister added: “A case-by-case approach rationally and appropriately allows Ravec to implement a responsive approach to reflect the applicable circumstances.”
The case didn’t conclude until 28 February 2024, when retired High Court judge Sir Peter Lane ruled against Prince Harry.
Image: The Duke leaving a service at St Paul’s Cathedral in London in May 2024. Pic: AP
He ruled the decision to change his security status was not unlawful or “irrational”, and that there had been no “procedural unfairness”.
The judge added: “Even if such procedural unfairness occurred, the court would in any event be prevented from granting the claimant [Prince Harry] relief.
“This is because, leaving aside any such unlawfulness, it is highly likely that the outcome for the claimant would not have been substantially different.”
Following the ruling, a Home Office spokesperson said: “We are pleased that the court has found in favour of the government’s position in this case and we are carefully considering our next steps.
After the ruling, a legal spokesperson for Harry said he intended to appeal, adding: “The duke is not asking for preferential treatment, but for a fair and lawful application of Ravec’s own rules, ensuring that he receives the same consideration as others in accordance with Ravec’s own written policy.
“In February 2020, Ravec failed to apply its written policy to the Duke of Sussex and excluded him from a particular risk analysis.
“The duke’s case is that the so-called ‘bespoke process’ that applies to him is no substitute for that risk analysis.
“The Duke of Sussex hopes he will obtain justice from the Court of Appeal, and makes no further comment while the case is ongoing.”
Prince eventually gets green light to appeal against High Court ruling