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
raised;
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.