“On Tuesday December 13, a full-day Judicial Review Court Hearing will take place at The Royal Courts of Justice on Strand, London, United Kingdom.”
“Action Against 5G Court Action” Legal Team
“Michael Mansfield QC is leading the legal team challenging the UK Government over its failure to take notice of the health risks and public concern related to 5G. One of the most venerated barristers of our time, Michael Mansfield has led legal teams in high profile cases of civil liberty and miscarriages of justice. He has represented the families of Grenfell Tower, Lockerbie, the Ballymurphy Massacre and Stephen Lawrence. He was recently described as “the king of human rights work” by The Legal 500 and as a Leading Silk in civil liberties and human rights.” – SOURCE
“..two junior barristers are working at half their normal hourly rate, which demonstrates their commitment, supported by a full time assistant, and we also have a full time legal researcher working pro bono.” – SOURCE
The case was crowd funded and has raised £181,491 to date.
Timeline of the Court Case
(adapted from https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/legalactionagainst5g/)
May 2020 Update: Initial Letter of Action Sent
“The legal team sent a “Letter Before Action” to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Secretary of State for Environment, Health and Rural Affairs and the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sports. The Departments also received from the legal team “A Review of the Health Risks of Radiofrequency Radiation Employed in 5G Technology and the Implications for UK Policymaking.” “The Letter of Action and Review were the first steps stating that the government is in breach of our human rights by ignoring the evidence of harm associated with 5G. The evidence does not go away because it is not looked at. In fact, it grows day by day.”
July 2021 Update: First Application for Judicial Review Denied
“The first application to judicially review the subject of ever rising levels of radio frequency radiation and its potential harm to ourselves and the environment has been subject to a refusal by a judge. Michael Mansfield QC, and barristers Philip Rule and Lorna Hackett swiftly lodged a Renewal Notice seeking permission for a hearing. The Defendants were presented with evidence which it is their duty to consider – and have failed to do so.
Whilst this initial decision is disappointing it is not altogether surprising in the current climate. This judicial review is a challenge to the Defendants’ acts and omissions concerning the failure to engage with necessary and sufficient investigation of the dangers and health risks and harms arising from the existing, and the increasing public exposure to new forms of radiation. The claim is very clear – there is a weight and volume of scientific material and evidence of harmful effects that must be properly considered by the Defendants. It is deeply concerning that there is no ownership by any of the Defendants of the risks to be considered by increasing exposure to RFR. There is, as yet, an absence of scientific reasoning and analysis undertaken by or provided by the Defendants.
This is not a case of which scientific material is to be preferred, but the obligation that all relevant scientific material must be considered and evaluated by the Defendants and cannot be a duty abrogated or delegated to a third-party. The simple point is that the Defendants have yet to give due consideration to the evidence of risks, but rather they delegate the national government’s duty to a single external body (ICNIRP).
It remains an incontestable fact that ICNIRP has adopted an approach that (a) lacks long-term study; (b) allows tests for NO effects other than over an extremely short duration, and (c) focused on whether a thermal effect occurred in that short timespan of singular exposure. That does not reflect the actual environment of RFR being created around the public in this country; nor engage properly with the need for caution, the impact on the vulnerable, or the scientific evidence of harm already available and presented in this case.
Our evidence plainly sets out the issues that need to be properly addressed, including that the government has not followed due process as noted above. There are disclosed certain deficiencies of reasoning, and serious questions and points raised that have not been answered.
Common to each of the Defendants’ decisions challenged in this case is that they are actions uninformed by an analysis by the United Kingdom of the presently available data and scientific knowledge concerning the risks to health from adopting these levels of radiation exposure.”
October 2021 Update: Justification for Appeal
“A Renewal Notice seeking permission for a Judicial Review hearing was turned down but we consider the reasoning for that decision to be flawed. The case advanced in the High Court includes evidence of manifest, observable and substantial non-thermal injuries from Electro-Magnetic Field Radiation, and identified that there are no studies being undertaken into any risks or protective measures to be reasonably taken by the Public Health Authorities or the public. The features of this case notably include:
• This Judicial Review does not ask a judge to finally decide any disputes of medical and scientific evidence, but only to ascertain whether the UK government has reviewed it as part of its risk-assessment obligations. A failure to do so amounts to a grave dereliction of duty.
• We have presented thousands of pages of peer reviews identified by our legal team and evidence of harm from Radiofrequency Radiation (RFR) caused to witnesses in otherwise unmonitored ‘hot spots’. Evidence of harm from RFR in individual cases must be heard and addressed.
• On October 28, it was stated that addressing health conditions resulting from 5G was ‘out of time’ ’because a policy decision to rollout 5G was effectively made in 2019. We do not accept that date for the failings of which we complain, and in any event there would be very good reason to extend time to consider the matter which is subject to ongoing and future expansion, and at some stage shall ‘turn on’ the 5G-only frequencies which pose the greatest risks. As we know, ongoing harm from other noxious substances, such as pesticides, tobacco, asbestos etc are never a matter of only historic interest ’ but are constantly being monitored and investigated, and so should effects from 5G.
We are considering an appeal with the Court of Appeal Civil Division after which we will need to await a decision on whether we have permission to proceed.”
May 2022 Update: Court of Appeal Granted Permission for the Case to Proceed
“..the Court of Appeal granted permission for the case to proceed on two grounds:
1. The failure to provide adequate or effective information to the public about the risks and how, if it be possible, it might be possible for individuals to avoid or minimise the risks;
2. (a) The failure to provide adequate and sufficient reasons for not establishing a process to investigate and establish the adverse health effects and risks of adverse health effects from 5G technology and/or for discounting the risks presented by the evidence available; and/or (b) failure to meet the requirements of transparency and openness required of a public body.
These grounds advance a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998 by omissions and failings in violation of the positive obligations to protect human life, health and dignity, required to be met by Articles 2, 3 and/or 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.“ – SOURCE
On Tuesday December 13, 2022, A Full-Day Judicial Review Court Hearing Will Take Place at The Royal Courts of Justice on Strand, London, United Kingdom.
Why the UK “Action Against 5G Court Action”?
“The Defendants cannot lawfully continue to ignore or overlook the evidence that indicates the existence of a risk that has not been quantified. To date there has been a failure to engage with this body of evidence, and an inappropriate attempt to delegate any assessment of risk to an external body – a body against which membership legitimate criticism of industry finance and conflict of interest is levelled.” – SOURCE
“Many people have tried to engage with the government and its agencies, including Public Health England, over the last few years in an attempt to persuade them that their existing policies are harmful to human, animal and plant health. The government rejects such approaches and insists on its adherence to ICNIRP’s guidelines. It has removed health concerns from the National Planning Policy Framework, thereby removing the ability of its citizens from raising such concerns at local council level. Its Electronic Communications Code has limited the rights of its citizens to object to equipment being put on their land. These policies are likely to result in harm to UK residents.”- SOURCE
More Background on Legal Case and European Perspectives
(adapted from https://actionagainst5g.org/legal-case/)
“Deploying 5G without the public’s consent constitutes a breach of the 1947 Nuremberg Code of Ethics regarding human subjects experimentation.
ICNIRP, the body that provides only ‘guidance,’ considers just thermal (heating) effects to the physical body and bases its guidelines solely on ‘opinions’ to which disclaimers are attached. All other effects are excluded. Without the inclusion of such a comprehensive body of scientifically proven data, the guidelines are not applicable to real life and environmental circumstances.
Further, the combination of new types of modulation and new higher frequencies have not been tested prior to the deployment of this new infrastructure. This ‘test’ (‘5G Testbeds’) on a population and environment and adopting a ‘wait-and-see’ approach, amounts to an experiment on the human population and a failure in duty of care by responsible authorities.”
“In March 2020 the European Parliament published: ‘Effects of 5G wireless communication on human health’…as 5G is an untested technology, a cautious approach would be prudent. The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Helsinki Accords and other international treaties recognise that informed consent prior to interventions that might affect human health is an essential, fundamental human right, which becomes even more controversial when considering children’s and young people’s exposure.”
European Environment Agency
“The European Environment Agency (EEA) has long advocated precaution concerning EMF exposure, pointing out that there were cases of failure to use the precautionary principle in the past, which have resulted in often irreversible damage to human health and environments. Appropriate, precautionary and proportionate actions taken now to avoid plausible and potentially serious threats to health from EMF are likely to be seen as prudent and wise from future perspectives.”
(See European Environment Agency – Policy Recommendations On Cell Phones, Wireless Radiation & Health compiled by the Environmental Health Trust. For example, see this news report from the Independent from 2007.)
Correspondance to Human Rights Council
“The UN General Assembly, Human Rights Council received this statement on 25 February–22 March 2019.
‘The deployment of 5G violates over 15 international agreements, treaties and recommendations, including article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which derives from the Nuremberg Code of 1947’5G is cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment under resolution 39/46’ “
Resolution 1815, European Parliamentary Assembly
“In 2011, in Resolution 1815, The European Parliamentary Assembly stated: “Given the context of growing exposure of the population, in particular that of vulnerable groups such as young people and children, there could be extremely high human and economic costs if early warnings are neglected.””
‘The Assembly regrets that, despite calls for the respect of the precautionary principle and despite all the recommendations, declarations and a number of statutory and legislative advances, there is still a lack of reaction to known or emerging environmental and health risks and virtually systematic delays in adopting and implementing effective preventive measures. Waiting for high levels of scientific and clinical proof before taking action to prevent well-known risks can lead to very high health and economic costs….’.PACE – Resolution 1815 (2011) – The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment. – (adapted from https://actionagainst5g.org/legal-case/)
UNITED STATES “On August 13, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the FCC failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its current human exposure guidelines adequately protect the public against all the harmful effects of exposure to 5G, cell tower, cell phone and wireless technologies.” Read about the similarities to the UK case here: Case update #10, August 20, 2021. https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/legalactionagainst5g/
History will not be recording whether or not there is a case to be made in the U.K. against reliance on ICNIRP and against the deployment of 5G.
History will record whether or not 2022 marked another turning point for the United Kingdom to be on the side of science, truth, justice, integrity, and environmental and human rights.
The European Union Prioritises Economics Over Health in the Rollout of Radiofrequency Technologies
“The fifth generation of radiofrequency communication, 5G, is currently being rolled out worldwide. Since September 2017, the EU 5G Appeal has been sent six times to the EU, requesting a moratorium on the rollout of 5G. This article reviews the 5G Appeal and the EU’s subsequent replies, including the extensive cover letter sent to the EU in September 2021, requesting stricter guidelines for exposures to radiofrequency radiation (RFR).”
Nyberg, Nils Rainer, McCredden, Julie E., Weller, Steven G. and Hardell, Lennart. The European Union prioritises economics over health in the rollout of radiofrequency technologies. Reviews on Environmental Health, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2022-0106. Published online September 22, 2022.