Chief Constable of the North Wales v Evans
Open-knowledge reference entry
Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v Evans [1982] UKHL 10 is a UK constitutional law case, concerning judicial review.
Facts
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, 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.
Judgment
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 were never put to Evans. However, an order for mandamus 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.
Lord Brightman said the following.
The public source identifies “Chief Constable of the North Wales v Evans” as open-knowledge reference entry. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Chief, Constable and North.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Chief Constable of the North Wales v Evans”, the useful work is to connect “open-knowledge reference entry” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 6, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q60787764. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1982 and 1971.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Chief Constable of the North Wales v Evans”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Chief Constable of the North Wales v Evans primary sources, Chief Constable of the North Wales v Evans archive and Chief research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Chief Constable of the North Wales v Evans”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Chief Constable of the North Wales v Evans” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.