North Yorkshire Police has responded to questions over the charges brought following the death of 19-year-old Bailey Chadwick.

Bailey died following a crash on the B6265 at Lupton Bank, between Pateley Bridge and Glasshouses, during the early hours of July 20, 2025.

North Yorkshire Police launched an intensive investigation which led to the arrest of Joseph Henry Stott.

At a trial at Harrogate Magistrates’ Court, the 25-year-old changed his plea to guilty to driving while over the prescribed limit for alcohol.

The offence had been established using a forward calculation because Stott was not arrested until four days after the crash.

It was the first time North Yorkshire Police had secured a conviction using the forward calculation method.

Stott had previously admitted driving without insurance.

He denied two other charges of failing to stop at a road accident and failing to report a road accident. His not guilty pleas were accepted by the court following his guilty plea to the drink-driving offence.

Stott was banned from driving for 20 months and given a Community Order, including a 12-month supervision order, 135 hours of unpaid work and an alcohol tag for 80 days.

Following the conclusion of court proceedings, North Yorkshire Police said it had seen a number of questions from members of the public about why certain charges were brought and why more serious charges were not.

In a statement, the force said: “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.”

Police said their role was to investigate what happened and gather all available evidence.

In Bailey's case, the force said this involved extensive enquiries including witness accounts, CCTV trawls, forensic examinations, digital evidence downloads, expert reports and suspect interviews.

The statement continued: “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.

“It is not possible for the police or CPS to simply select the most serious offence available. Every criminal offence has specific legal legislation that must be proven. When considering charges, prosecutors assess factors such as what happened, what actions can be attributed to a suspect, what evidence exists, what intent can be proven and whether the legal threshold for a particular offence has been met.

“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.”

North Yorkshire Police also stressed that it does not decide guilt or innocence, with the court considering the evidence presented by the prosecution and defence before reaching an outcome.

The statement added: “The criminal justice system is deliberately structured in this way. We investigate, the CPS makes charging decisions in many serious cases, and the courts determine guilt and sentence. This separation of responsibilities helps ensure that decisions are made fairly, independently and in accordance with the law.

“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.”