102:
The House of Lords held the Chief
Officer’s discretion under the Police Regulations 1971 was not absolute, but qualified and could only be exercised if the probationer was unfit for office or unlikely to become an efficient constable, in accordance with natural justice. The supposedly adverse factors
94:
which ostensibly might have been a scandal for the force, (2) he was keeping four dogs in a police council house, which had a one dog limit, and (3) Evans and his wife lived a “hippy” lifestyle. Evans argued that if he had been able to choose between his dogs and his career, the dogs would have gone.
120:
I turn secondly to the proper purpose of the remedy of judicial review, what it is and what it is not. In my opinion the law was correctly stated in the speech of Lord
Evershed (at page 96). His was a dissenting judgment but the dissent was not concerned with this point. Lord Evershed referred to "a
93:
Evans claimed he was unjustly dismissed as a probationary constable. He received good progress reports. The Chief
Constable interviewed him and asked him to resign rather than formally firing him on the grounds that Evans (1) married a woman much older than himself, the former mistress of his uncle,
125:
I do observe again that it is not the decision as such which is liable to review; it is only the circumstances in which the decision was reached, and particularly in such a case as the present the need for giving to the party dismissed an opportunity for putting his
130:
Judicial review is concerned, not with the decision, but with the decision-making process. Unless that restriction on the power of the court is observed, the court will in my view, under the guise of preventing the abuse of power, be itself guilty of usurping
109:
for reinstatement would usurp the Chief
Constable’s powers, so declaring the action void was unsatisfactory. Instead, Evans would have a declaration affirming an unlawfully induced resignation and could get damages.
331:
429:
164:
357:
217:
269:
231:
193:
307:
121:
danger of usurpation of power on the part of the courts... under the pretext of having regard to the principles of natural justice." He added
295:
243:
283:
205:
40:
255:
82:
157:
150:
17:
319:
382:
371:
78:
345:
181:
113:
423:
387:
142:
135:
Lord
Hailsham LC, Lord Fraser, Lord Roskill, Lord Bridge gave concurring opinions.
74:
50:
105:
146:
57:
46:
36:
31:
71:Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v Evans
18:Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v Evans
333:R (Corner House Research) v Serious Fraud Office
118:
103:were never put to Evans. However, an order for
359:R (Miller) v SS for Exiting the European Union
257:R v Cambridge Health Authority, ex p B (No 1)
158:
8:
219:Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission
271:R (Venables and Thompson) v Home Secretary
165:
151:
143:
32:Chief Constable of the North Wales v Evans
28:
398:
232:British Oxygen v Minister of Technology
194:AP Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp
430:United Kingdom constitutional case law
308:R (Coughlan) v North and East Devon HA
296:R (Daly) v SS for the Home Department
244:CCSU v Minister for the Civil Service
7:
284:Clark v University of Lincolnshire
206:Padfield v Minister of Agriculture
25:
173:Substantive judicial review cases
1:
446:
368:
354:
342:
328:
316:
304:
292:
280:
266:
252:
240:
228:
214:
202:
190:
178:
62:
320:Huang v Home Secretary
133:
128:
383:UK constitutional law
372:UK constitutional law
123:
79:UK constitutional law
116:said the following.
346:Ahmed v HM Treasury
378:
377:
81:case, concerning
67:
66:
16:(Redirected from
437:
406:
405:1 WLR 1155, 1173
403:
360:
334:
272:
258:
220:
167:
160:
153:
144:
29:
21:
445:
444:
440:
439:
438:
436:
435:
434:
420:
419:
414:
409:
404:
400:
396:
379:
374:
364:
358:
350:
338:
332:
324:
312:
300:
288:
276:
270:
262:
256:
248:
236:
224:
218:
210:
198:
186:
182:Kruse v Johnson
174:
171:
141:
100:
91:
83:judicial review
63:Judicial review
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
443:
441:
433:
432:
422:
421:
418:
417:
413:
410:
408:
407:
397:
395:
392:
391:
390:
385:
376:
375:
369:
366:
365:
355:
352:
351:
343:
340:
339:
329:
326:
325:
317:
314:
313:
305:
302:
301:
293:
290:
289:
281:
278:
277:
267:
264:
263:
253:
250:
249:
241:
238:
237:
229:
226:
225:
215:
212:
211:
203:
200:
199:
191:
188:
187:
179:
176:
175:
172:
170:
169:
162:
155:
147:
140:
137:
114:Lord Brightman
99:
96:
90:
87:
65:
64:
60:
59:
55:
54:
48:
44:
43:
41:House of Lords
38:
34:
33:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
442:
431:
428:
427:
425:
416:
415:
411:
402:
399:
393:
389:
388:UK labour law
386:
384:
381:
380:
373:
367:
362:
361:
353:
348:
347:
341:
336:
335:
327:
322:
321:
315:
310:
309:
303:
298:
297:
291:
286:
285:
279:
274:
273:
265:
260:
259:
251:
246:
245:
239:
234:
233:
227:
222:
221:
213:
208:
207:
201:
196:
195:
189:
184:
183:
177:
168:
163:
161:
156:
154:
149:
148:
145:
138:
136:
132:
127:
122:
117:
115:
111:
108:
107:
97:
95:
88:
86:
84:
80:
76:
73:
72:
61:
56:
53:, 1 WLR 1155
52:
49:
45:
42:
39:
35:
30:
27:
19:
401:
356:
344:
330:
318:
306:
294:
282:
268:
254:
242:
230:
216:
204:
192:
180:
134:
129:
124:
119:
112:
104:
101:
92:
70:
69:
68:
26:
412:References
287:1 WLR 1988
261:1 WLR 898
47:Citations
424:Category
299:2 AC 532
223:2 AC 147
197:1 KB 223
139:See also
106:mandamus
98:Judgment
58:Keywords
337:UKHL 60
323:UKSC 11
185:2 QB 91
75:UKHL 10
51:UKHL 10
363:UKSC 5
349:UKSC 2
311:QB 213
275:AC 407
247:AC 374
235:AC 610
209:AC 997
131:power.
394:Notes
126:case.
89:Facts
77:is a
37:Court
370:see
426::
85:.
166:e
159:t
152:v
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.