Philip Coppel - Academia.edu (original) (raw)
Papers by Philip Coppel
“An essential addition to the bookshelf of any practitioner who has to consider information right... more “An essential addition to the bookshelf of any practitioner who has to consider information rights, however often. The book is the best kind of practitioner text: practical and clear, but also scholarly, thoughtful and analytical.” (Sarah Hannett KC, Judicial Review) Retaining the position it has held since first publication, this is the 6th edition of the leading practitioner text on all aspects of information law. The latest edition includes a substantially enlarged set of chapters on appeals, enforcement, and remedies, as well as covering over 250 new judgments and decisions published since the last edition. Information Rights has been cited by the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and the Tribunals, and is used by practitioners, judges and all those who practise in the field, including journalists. The new edition maintains its style of succinct statements of principle, supported by case law, legislative provisions, and statutory guidance. The work is divided into 2 volumes. Volume 1 is a 1,500-page commentary, with a comprehensive coverage of the data protection regime, freedom of information and environmental information law, as well as other rights of access to official information such as local government legislation and the Public Records Act. There is detailed coverage of appeal and regulatory procedures. Volume 2 comprises extensive annotated statutory material, including the DPA 2018, the UK GDPR, FOIA, Tribunal rules and statutory guidance. Contributors: James Findlay KC, Olivia Davies, John Fitzsimons, Richard Hanstock and Dr Christina Lienen (all of Cornerstone Barristers); Antony White KC, Sarah Hannett KC, Sara Mansoori KC and Aidan Wills (all of Matrix Chambers); Aidan Eardley KC and Clara Hamer (both of 5RB); Rupert Bowers KC and Martin Westgate KC (both of Doughty Street Chambers); Henry King KC and Bankim Thanki KC (both of Fountain Court Chambers); James Maurici KC and Jacqueline Lean (both of Landmark Chambers); Gemma White KC (Blackstone Chambers); Oliver Sanders KC (1 Crown Office Row); Saima Hanif KC (3VB); Jennifer Thelen (39 Essex Chambers); and Simon McKay (McKay Law).
Judicial review, Dec 1, 2004
For a more detailed consideration of the 2000 Act and other relevant rights, see Philip Coppel, I... more For a more detailed consideration of the 2000 Act and other relevant rights, see Philip Coppel, Information Rights (Sweet & Maxwell, 2004). 1 Lord Diplock wrote (in 1982) of the progress that had been made in the 30 preceding years "towards a comprehensive system of administrative law that I regard as having been the greatest achievement of the English courts in my judicial lifetime": R v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex p. National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Buinesses Ltd [1982] AC 617 at 641. 2 A term of Swedish derivation, happily imported into the English language. Sweden has had one since 1809, Denmark since 1955 and Norway since 1962. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration was first appointed in 1967. 3 Proposals for a coherent merit review tribunal were made in Sir Andrew Leggatt's Report of the Review of Tribunals (16 August 2001). That report recommended, amongst other things, that "the citizen should be presented with a single, overarching structure giving access to all tribunals" (recommendation 5), the creation of a single tribunal system divided by subject matter into divisions (recommendation 89) and a single route of appeal for all tribunals (recommendation 95). The Government has broadly accepted the Leggatt recommendations, issuing a White Paper, Transforming Public Services: Complaints, Redress and Tribunals (15 July 2004). 4 (1966) 5 USC 552. Elsewhere the legislation is, perhaps more accurately, variously entitled the Official Information Act 1982 (New Zealand) or the Access to Information Act (1982) (Canada). 5 The Public Bodies (Access to Information) Act 1960 remains both in force and, by virtue of s. 21 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, of continuing significance.
Judicial review, Dec 1, 2005
Judicial Review, 2004
For a more detailed consideration of the 2000 Act and other relevant rights, see Philip Coppel, I... more For a more detailed consideration of the 2000 Act and other relevant rights, see Philip Coppel, Information Rights (Sweet & Maxwell, 2004). 1 Lord Diplock wrote (in 1982) of the progress that had been made in the 30 preceding years "towards a comprehensive system of administrative law that I regard as having been the greatest achievement of the English courts in my judicial lifetime": R v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex p. National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Buinesses Ltd [1982] AC 617 at 641. 2 A term of Swedish derivation, happily imported into the English language. Sweden has had one since 1809, Denmark since 1955 and Norway since 1962. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration was first appointed in 1967. 3 Proposals for a coherent merit review tribunal were made in Sir Andrew Leggatt's Report of the Review of Tribunals (16 August 2001). That report recommended, amongst other things, that "the citizen should be presented with a single, overarching structure giving access to all tribunals" (recommendation 5), the creation of a single tribunal system divided by subject matter into divisions (recommendation 89) and a single route of appeal for all tribunals (recommendation 95). The Government has broadly accepted the Leggatt recommendations, issuing a White Paper, Transforming Public Services: Complaints, Redress and Tribunals (15 July 2004). 4 (1966) 5 USC 552. Elsewhere the legislation is, perhaps more accurately, variously entitled the Official Information Act 1982 (New Zealand) or the Access to Information Act (1982) (Canada). 5 The Public Bodies (Access to Information) Act 1960 remains both in force and, by virtue of s. 21 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, of continuing significance.
“An essential addition to the bookshelf of any practitioner who has to consider information right... more “An essential addition to the bookshelf of any practitioner who has to consider information rights, however often. The book is the best kind of practitioner text: practical and clear, but also scholarly, thoughtful and analytical.” (Sarah Hannett KC, Judicial Review) Retaining the position it has held since first publication, this is the 6th edition of the leading practitioner text on all aspects of information law. The latest edition includes a substantially enlarged set of chapters on appeals, enforcement, and remedies, as well as covering over 250 new judgments and decisions published since the last edition. Information Rights has been cited by the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and the Tribunals, and is used by practitioners, judges and all those who practise in the field, including journalists. The new edition maintains its style of succinct statements of principle, supported by case law, legislative provisions, and statutory guidance. The work is divided into 2 volumes. Volume 1 is a 1,500-page commentary, with a comprehensive coverage of the data protection regime, freedom of information and environmental information law, as well as other rights of access to official information such as local government legislation and the Public Records Act. There is detailed coverage of appeal and regulatory procedures. Volume 2 comprises extensive annotated statutory material, including the DPA 2018, the UK GDPR, FOIA, Tribunal rules and statutory guidance. Contributors: James Findlay KC, Olivia Davies, John Fitzsimons, Richard Hanstock and Dr Christina Lienen (all of Cornerstone Barristers); Antony White KC, Sarah Hannett KC, Sara Mansoori KC and Aidan Wills (all of Matrix Chambers); Aidan Eardley KC and Clara Hamer (both of 5RB); Rupert Bowers KC and Martin Westgate KC (both of Doughty Street Chambers); Henry King KC and Bankim Thanki KC (both of Fountain Court Chambers); James Maurici KC and Jacqueline Lean (both of Landmark Chambers); Gemma White KC (Blackstone Chambers); Oliver Sanders KC (1 Crown Office Row); Saima Hanif KC (3VB); Jennifer Thelen (39 Essex Chambers); and Simon McKay (McKay Law).
Judicial review, Dec 1, 2004
For a more detailed consideration of the 2000 Act and other relevant rights, see Philip Coppel, I... more For a more detailed consideration of the 2000 Act and other relevant rights, see Philip Coppel, Information Rights (Sweet & Maxwell, 2004). 1 Lord Diplock wrote (in 1982) of the progress that had been made in the 30 preceding years "towards a comprehensive system of administrative law that I regard as having been the greatest achievement of the English courts in my judicial lifetime": R v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex p. National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Buinesses Ltd [1982] AC 617 at 641. 2 A term of Swedish derivation, happily imported into the English language. Sweden has had one since 1809, Denmark since 1955 and Norway since 1962. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration was first appointed in 1967. 3 Proposals for a coherent merit review tribunal were made in Sir Andrew Leggatt's Report of the Review of Tribunals (16 August 2001). That report recommended, amongst other things, that "the citizen should be presented with a single, overarching structure giving access to all tribunals" (recommendation 5), the creation of a single tribunal system divided by subject matter into divisions (recommendation 89) and a single route of appeal for all tribunals (recommendation 95). The Government has broadly accepted the Leggatt recommendations, issuing a White Paper, Transforming Public Services: Complaints, Redress and Tribunals (15 July 2004). 4 (1966) 5 USC 552. Elsewhere the legislation is, perhaps more accurately, variously entitled the Official Information Act 1982 (New Zealand) or the Access to Information Act (1982) (Canada). 5 The Public Bodies (Access to Information) Act 1960 remains both in force and, by virtue of s. 21 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, of continuing significance.
Judicial review, Dec 1, 2005
Judicial Review, 2004
For a more detailed consideration of the 2000 Act and other relevant rights, see Philip Coppel, I... more For a more detailed consideration of the 2000 Act and other relevant rights, see Philip Coppel, Information Rights (Sweet & Maxwell, 2004). 1 Lord Diplock wrote (in 1982) of the progress that had been made in the 30 preceding years "towards a comprehensive system of administrative law that I regard as having been the greatest achievement of the English courts in my judicial lifetime": R v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex p. National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Buinesses Ltd [1982] AC 617 at 641. 2 A term of Swedish derivation, happily imported into the English language. Sweden has had one since 1809, Denmark since 1955 and Norway since 1962. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration was first appointed in 1967. 3 Proposals for a coherent merit review tribunal were made in Sir Andrew Leggatt's Report of the Review of Tribunals (16 August 2001). That report recommended, amongst other things, that "the citizen should be presented with a single, overarching structure giving access to all tribunals" (recommendation 5), the creation of a single tribunal system divided by subject matter into divisions (recommendation 89) and a single route of appeal for all tribunals (recommendation 95). The Government has broadly accepted the Leggatt recommendations, issuing a White Paper, Transforming Public Services: Complaints, Redress and Tribunals (15 July 2004). 4 (1966) 5 USC 552. Elsewhere the legislation is, perhaps more accurately, variously entitled the Official Information Act 1982 (New Zealand) or the Access to Information Act (1982) (Canada). 5 The Public Bodies (Access to Information) Act 1960 remains both in force and, by virtue of s. 21 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, of continuing significance.