PRESS RELEASE ON BEHALF OF THE MATERNAL FAMILY’S LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

Posted onMay 7, 2026
Emily Hayman

Brooke Louise Wiggins: Conclusion of Inquest examining death of young girl crushed to death by a tree branch, owned and managed by Surrey County Council, which fell whilst she was playing on a rope swing attached to it

Before: HM Assistant Coroner Ivor Collett
At: South London Coroner’s Court
22 – 24 April 2026 (3 days)

Brooke was a caring, loving and fun 12-year old girl, who was deeply loved by her family. Her maternal family gave the following statement about her in Court:

‘She had the most incredible way of lighting up any room she walked into – her smile, her laughter, her energy – everything about her brought joy to those around her.

We are so proud of the girl she was – kind, funny, glamorous, full of life, and full of love. We will carry her in our hearts always. Our beautiful Brooke, our Queen B – forever loved, forever missed’.

The Events that Led to Brooke’s Death

On 9 November 2024, Brooke and her two friends were playing on a rope swing attached to a tree branch located in a wooded clearing along the boundary between a public right of way managed by Surrey County Council (‘SCC’), and land owned by London Borough of Sutton (‘LBS’), behind a residential area.
The tree in question was under the control of SCC on land at Carshalton Road, although it fell outside the geographical or administrative county of Surrey. The branch which fell was overhanging LBS land.
The tree had been formally inspected by SCC in May 2022, in which the arboriculturist team leader had identified remedial works were required and a subsequent re-inspection of the tree was scheduled.
Therein, works were identified, namely, to sever and remove ivy climbing up the trunk of the tree to the crown were due to be completed by the following year, i.e. by May 2023, and a reinspection was meant to take place 12 months thereafter, i.e. by May 2024.
However, neither the remedial works to the tree were undertaken nor was the follow up inspection carried out prior to Brooke’s death.
SCC’s policy on rope swings required them to be removed within 7 days upon becoming aware of the same. There was no rope swing in situ at the time of the May 2022 inspection. No one reported the presence of the rope swing to SCC at any point.
During the incident itself, Brooke had been swinging on the rope swing when the branch it was attached to failed, resulting in fatal injuries.
At the time of Brooke’s death, 3 pieces of rope were present on the branch that failed. The one she was using had blue rope in two lengths attached to the branch and with a wooden stick below to create a seat.
The fact that the recommended works and reinspection were not carried out in line with SCC’s arboriculturist’s own plan, meant that there was no further opportunity for SCC themselves to re-assess the tree for defects or the presence of a rope swing.

The Evidence

During the inquest, the following evidence was discussed:

The branch had failed due to a combination of loading from the weight of the swing when in use, and a defect along the top of the branch which would not likely have been visible from ground level.
The ivy removal work was allocated a ‘priority 5’, meaning it should take place within 12 months of the survey date. However, SCC’s Arboriculture Team Leader said that this timescale was ‘aspirational’ as the work would necessarily compete with other work across the region.
However, there were various supporting pieces of evidence which support the potential presence of the rope swing at the time when the reinspection should have been carried out. In particular, an attending police officer notes that the ‘rope swing had apparently between on the tree for between six months to one year’.
The expert Arboriculturist Consultant, Simon Cox, gave evidence that in reporting on the accident post-death, SCC had not reported to him, any additional assessment process as having taken place in relation to the tree. That is, no further inspection or assessment of any sort had taken place in relation to the tree, beyond the formal inspection in May 2022. He further stated that ‘Informal opportunities to observe the tree by others would have been appropriate’.
A witness gave evidence that SCC’s rangers did not patrol this parcel of land as it was outside the geographical limits of the county. Further, LBS’ tree inspectors would have had no reason to inspect the tree due to the issue of legal ownership but also both as there were no LBS trees in that area, nor would they have any cause to go up to the public right of way screened by bramble, trees and shrubs.
Mr Cox gave evidence that he considers a 12 – 24 monthly cycle of re-inspection of trees of the kind in question, to be appropriate.
The tree had been categorised by SCC as being of low occupancy, and the area classified as remote with little evidence of public use, thereby warranting a ‘low to very low risk’ categorisation. The appropriateness of this category was challenged based on evidence which demonstrated that the tree was located just metres away from the well-used public right of way, and was close to multiple residential dwellings at Grove Place and The Pastures, where children lived and played.
The arboriculture team leader had the capacity to check if any such works and/or inspections were outstanding by running a manual check. However, with millions of trees under his care, he had not done this at the time of Brooke’s death and there was no system of automatically notifying SCC that such works and/or inspection deadlines had lapsed.
The team leader gave evidence that ‘the deadlines lapsed without [an] active decision being made’, and that the fact that the system does not flag individual trees or sites that are overdue is a ‘limitation of the system’ and not a feature of it at present. A witness attending on behalf of the Heath and Safety Executive noted that there was no documented record provided by SCC of the decision to defer the inspection of the area.
Evidence heard at this inquest demonstrates that there is a lack of awareness of the dangers posed by rope swings. A senior member of SCC cited an example of teachers asking to put rope swings up on trees in schools.
Part-way through the final hearing, SCC produced a post-death aerial inspection report in respect of the tree to the court, for the first time. The expert felt unable to comment on this, having not had the time to consider it at length. The report post-dated Brooke’s death by less than 6 months and was relevant to the issues in the case. It reported various defects to the same tree and a recommendation that the tree be ‘monolithed’, stating ‘This is the viable option to make the area safe for the residents to prevent potential damage arising to the surrounding trees and fences’.

The Inquest Conclusion and findings

The inquest concluded today on 6 May 2026 after 3 days of evidence.

The Coroner returned a conclusion stating that:

The medical cause of death was ‘Blunt force trauma to the chest with traumatic asphyxia’.
The death was recorded as an ‘accident’ in short-form.

The Coroner found that the Article 2 “systems duty”, namely the positive duty imposed on the State to safeguard life through an established framework of laws, procedures, precautions and means of enforcement, was not engaged in these circumstances.

He found that SCC was administering an effective inspection regime, whereby works were prioritised and re-prioritised, in accordance with a dynamic system balancing potential risk created by tree(s) against the resources/funds available to manage all trees under SCC’s control. He said that the biennial inspection regime for the tree was at least adequate, and lack of ivy removal works nor automatic flagging up over overdue works demonstrated that such a dynamic system of prioritisation in conjunction with resource management was occurring.
He determined that the evidence established, to his satisfaction, that the rope swing was ‘probably not present’ at the time when the reinspection should have been carried out in May 2024. Amongst other things, he relied on Mr Cox’s evidence such that the rope on the swing Brooke used, hadn’t been outside very long, and was ‘like new’.
He also found that SCC’s policy requirement to consider erecting warning notices where they have removed rope swings from a particular location on ‘multiple occasions’, was not applicable here, given they had not in fact removed rope swings from the tree at all.
Whilst making no finding on the matter, he added that ‘it is doubtful that vigorous children and teenagers would take much notice of warning signs’.
In summary, he said that Brooke’s death was ‘not readily foreseeable’, ‘reasonable systems’ were in place, and the councils ‘could not reasonably be expected to have done more in a way which would have prevented this terrible accident’. Amongst other things, he placed weight on SCC’s resources in concluding that they could not reasonably have been expected to do more in a way which would have prevented what happened.

In addition to this conclusion, the Coroner also considered submissions about whether his duty to prepare a report to prevent future deaths is engaged. He decided that a report was not warranted in these circumstances, and deferred to the local authorities’ capabilities to manage their own resources in this context adequately.

Brooke’s family said: While we respect the Coroner’s conclusion, as a family we are deeply disappointed that, despite the evidence heard during the inquest regarding overdue inspections and outstanding maintenance works, no stronger findings were made around accountability and prevention.

Brooke should still be here today. We firmly believe there are important lessons that must be learned around tree inspection, maintenance and the management of rope swings in public spaces. Our focus now is ensuring Brooke’s death leads to meaningful change so that no other family has to experience the pain we are living with.

Emily Hayman, Saunders Law, said: It is disappointing that the Coroner has effectively concluded that there are no lessons to be learned Brooke’s tragic death. The Coroner has accepted SCC’s assertion that management of the tree was consistent with both ‘industry standard’ and other local authorities’ approaches.

The evidence around a lack of informal inspection of the tree, or adequate assessment of the occupancy of the tree and its associated risk, did not feature in the conclusion or findings of the Coroner. In addition, the absence of a system of automated notifications as to when works / inspections which were overdue or where deadlines had lapsed, calls into question the effectiveness of the system as it stands to deliver safe tree management within publicly accessible land.

However, of paramount importance to the family is that true and lasting change can be effected in local authorities across the nation to educate about the inherent dangers of rope swings, and best practice to enable both members of the public and councils to identify and remove the same. I am glad that they can feel that some of their questions have been answered, and commend them for their dignity, resilience and grace they have shown throughout this extremely challenging process.

NOTES TO EDITORS

For all media inquiries, please contact: Clare Evans at [email protected] or 020 7632 4300.

Brooke’s maternal family (her mother, uncle, grandad and brother) were represented by Inquest Lawyers Group members Clare Evans and Emily Hayman of Saunders Law, and Tamar Burton of Cloisters.

Interested Persons (‘IPs’): deceased’s family, Surrey County Council (‘SCC’), London Borough of Sutton (‘LBS’), and the Health and Safety Executive (‘HSE’)