Why no-one was charged with causing North Yorkshire death

Bailey Chadwick’s body was found on the B6265 near Pateley Bridge shortly after estate agent Joseph Henry Stott had driven over him at 2.57am on July 20, 2025.

Stott had spent the previous evening drinking and Bailey, 19, had been walking home after finishing work at a pub in a nearby village.

Stott, formerly of Dairy Lane, Darley, Harrogate, and now living at an undisclosed address in West Yorkshire, changed his plea to guilty to driving while unfit to drive through drink a week ago on the day he was due to stand trial at Harrogate Magistrates' Court. 

He had previously admitted driving without insurance. The prosecution offered no evidence on charges of failure to stop after a collision and failure to report a collision.

Stott was never charged with any offence that included responsibility for Bailey’s injuries or death. His barrister Phil Morris said he had not realised he had driven over Bailey.

A North Yorkshire Police statement said: “Following the conclusion of court proceedings relating to the death of Bailey Chadwick last week, we've seen a number of questions from members of the public about why certain charges were brought and why more serious charges were not.

“We completely understand those questions. The death of a young man has had a devastating impact on Bailey's family, friends and the wider community in Pateley Bridge, and it is natural that people want to understand how charging decisions are made.

“When a case involves serious injury or the loss of life, many people understandably assume that the most serious possible offence should automatically be charged. However, criminal charges are not determined by the seriousness of an incident alone.”

The statement said police carried out "extensive enquiries including witness accounts, CCTV trawls, forensic examinations, digital evidence downloads, expert reports and suspect interviews.

"For serious cases such as this, the evidence is then reviewed by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), an independent organisation responsible for making charging decisions in many cases.

"The CPS must consider not only the circumstances of the incident, but also whether there is sufficient evidence to prove a particular offence in court. Any charge brought must be supported by the evidence and reflect what prosecutors believe has a realistic prospect of conviction."

Harrogate Magistrates' Court heard that police had evidence that Bailey was lying in the road before Stott arrived and that there was no evidence that enabled the prosecution to say why he was lying in the road.

A forensic crash investigator concluded that a competent driver would have been unable to avoid running over him because there was no street lighting, Bailey was wearing dark clothing, and they would not have had enough time to react after seeing him.

The police statement said: “Sometimes there can be a gap between public expectation and what the available evidence allows prosecutors to charge.

"While many people may feel a more serious offence should be brought, charging decisions must be based on evidence and legal tests rather than public opinion, speculation or emotion.

“It is also important to understand that we do not decide guilt or innocence. Once charges are authorised, the case is heard by an independent court, which considers all of the evidence presented by both the prosecution and defence before reaching a verdict (outcome).”

Stott entered his plea after lawyers for the prosecution and defence spoke to the district judge in charge of the hearing in private.

The police statement said: “We recognise that not everyone will agree with the outcome of every case. However, every charging decision must be based on the evidence available and the legal thresholds that must be met before a case can succeed in court.

"Our thoughts remain with Bailey's family and everyone affected by his death.”