We are now in a position to release extracts from the Grounds presented to the Court of Appeal

(1) The Court erred in failing to recognise that there has (contrary to the

Respondent’s assertion) been no assessment, or no sufficient assessment, by

the Respondents of the risks posed to public health by the use of 5G wireless

technology frequencies.

This relates both to the scientific studies and evidence available

publicly and/or to the evidence provided by the Appellants (which includes

evidence of harm suffered by identified individuals). The failing relates both

to the general population and to identified categories of vulnerable person.

The Respondents are simply unable to point to any decision, report and

analysis that would evidence and explain any relevant assessment of risk

undertaken by the government. Accordingly, far from an insuperable

obstacle to the claim this constitutes a fatal absence from any lawful

defence. The complete absence of proper reasons for any decisions by the

government has not been addressed by the learned Judge.

(2) The grounds for judicial review (or any of them) are properly arguable.

Accordingly the Court erred in refusing permission to proceed with the

claim. The grounds for judicial review are:

i. breach of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 resulting from

omissions and failings in violation of the positive obligations

required to be met by Articles 2, 3 and/or 8 of the European

Convention on Human Rights, (“ECHR”), resulting from –

a. Failure to, or abdication of responsibility to, review the

scientific and available evidence as the body responsible

for the safety of citizens / Failure to take account of

evidence of the risk posed to human health by

radiofrequency radiation, ‘RFR’, and/or 5G;

b. Failure to undertake an effective independent and

sufficiently informed assessment of the risks;

c. Failure to implement effective safeguards to protect the

public from the risks or potential risks, including those

posed to children attending schools and nurseries and/or

to those with a disability;

d. 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;

e. Absence of sufficient measures to provide effective

protection for children from the real risk of harm;

f. The failure to provide adequate or effective safety

information to the public or to vulnerable sections of the

public concerning risks or steps to minimise risks;

g. The adoption of RFR exposure guidelines concerned

with thermal effects only which do not suffice to

discharge the duty to take all practicable steps to the

greatest extent possible to protect against a violation;

h. Failure to ensure or safeguard a safe environment for

human health;

i. Or otherwise.

ii. failure to consider the best interests of the child principle and the

Respondents’ duties in that regard when considering formulating,

updating or reviewing the appropriate approach to 5G policy and risk

assessment for exposed children. In the alternative, they have failed

to make this a primary consideration;

iii. failure to discharge the Public Sector Equality Duty (“PSED”),

contrary to s149 of the Equality Act 2010, lacking an equality

assessment to inform decisions on approval of 5G generally and/or

of permissible locations of 5G and/or of the policy to adopt

International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection,

‘ICNIRP’, guidelines;

iv. breach of statutory duty under s2A of the National Health Service

Act 2006, either resulting from (a) unlawful delegation or abdication

of the statutory function to an external private organisation; and/or

(b) irrationally failing to take appropriate steps under this power

and/or failing to exercise a discretion in accordance with the

statutory purpose;

v. failure to take into account relevant considerations, giving due and

proper consideration to the evidence, information and concerns


vi. (a) 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; and/or

vii. Wednesbury unreasonable or illogical failure to conduct a due and

sufficient enquiry into relevant matters and/or unreasonable

adherence, in the face of the current evidence, to a policy that 5G

technology is only required to adhere to ICNIRP guidelines.