Amy Anne Levy · Prevention of Future Deaths report

On 28 June 2023 my office commenced an investigation into the death of Amy Anne Levy.

The investigation concluded at the end of a 5-day inquest on 6 June 2025.

The conclusion of the jury who heard the inquest was –

‘Amy took a deliberate overdose of prescription drugs on 18th June 2023. It is not possible to know her true intent.’

Police were notified at the time of her overdose but Amy’s whereabouts were unknown: much of the evidence in the inquest centred on their attempts to find her address so that emergency services could be sent to help her.

This was an article 2 inquest, and in recording how Amy died the jury identified ‘a catalogue of missed opportunities to obtain Amy’s correct address’ by various bodies including Surrey Police and Avon and Somerset Constabulary.

The jury also concluded that if not for those missed opportunities Amy would probably have survived.

At the time of her death Amy was a 22-year-old student at the University of the West of England (UWE), living at a term-time address in Bristol.

While she was in Bristol (on 18 June 2023) she called a friend, took an overdose of prescription drugs, and then steadily deteriorated while remaining on the phone – initially becoming unresponsive and later appearing to stop breathing.

Surrey Police were informed of the situation via a 999 call.

In the ensuing period of over 2 hours before Amy was found Surrey Police and Avon and Somerset Constabulary both tried to obtain her correct address.

As part of that effort calls were made by police (i) to Amy’s family home in Surrey, and (ii) to her mother’s mobile phone.

Each call came through with ‘no caller ID’ and went unanswered.

Both police forces knew that Amy had taken an overdose at an unknown address and that her condition was deteriorating. Both forces had graded Amy’s case as requiring an ‘immediate’ response (the most urgent category).

Despite that factual background, none of the officers or call handlers who phoned Amy’s parents left a voicemail message.

Having missed the call/s (from an unknown source or sources) Amy’s parents did not know that there was an emergency, or that the police wanted to speak with them, and had no way of calling back whoever had called them.

It is probable that Amy’s location could have been obtained earlier than it was if the police had left a suitably worded voicemail for one or more of her parents.

Amy died in hospital on 22 June 2023. The medical cause of death was determined to be:

1a) Hypoxic brain injury
1b) Quetiapine and zopiclone overdose
2) Depression

As I have outlined above, this was an ‘immediate’ priority search to obtain the address of a young woman who whose life was believed to be at risk.

It is hard to understand the decision (made by more than one police caller) not to leave any voicemail/message.

We heard evidence from two police Inspectors (one from Avon and Somerset Constabulary and one from Surrey Police) that although there is guidance in Avon not to leave voicemails when the incident in question concerns domestic abuse, there is no general guidance about when to leave a voicemail message in other cases (ie, it is neither encouraged not discouraged by any policy or standard operating procedure).

I was subsequently provided with an updated ‘Deployment of Resources Procedure’ from Surrey Police, which indicates that ‘call takers and dispatchers must consider whether it is appropriate to leave a voicemail, unless there is a compelling operational reason not to do so’. It is not clear from the title of the document or the wording of the guidance whether this is intended to affect police officers, or only the actions of those in Surrey’s contact centre and force control room.