With the support of you, and our legal team headed by Michael Mansfield QC, ‘We will not stop here’. We know the safety and future wellbeing of many people, including children and the vulnerable depends on us.

On October 28, 2021, 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 now 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. 

Around the UK, residents are rejecting 5G masts on grounds of health, siting and increased electrical consumption and attendant carbon emissions. 

We are inspired by such wins as 53 masts turned down in the city of Bristol. 

An objector wrote to the Medway Council, “There is a legal case underway being led by eminent barrister Michael Mansfield which is challenging the government’s lack of proper risk assessment as well as their failure to protect public health, particularly children.”  

Only when challenged by Judicial Review proceedings did Brighton Council concede; due process was not followed concerning the impacts of a mast near a school:

“The council failed to address the health impacts of this particular proposal and to obtain adequate evidence of the assessment of the proximity to the school; and the amended proposal.“

Since last year, the team at Action Against 5G has set up a way the public can record symptoms and side effects of Radio Frequency Radiation:  Link.  This will constitute important evidence in future legal challenges to the government. Whilst the Court is already in receipt of evidence of actual,  physical harm suffered we still want to hear from others around the country who may have been harmed in this way

Thank you for all your support and work so far. As Michael Mansfield says, ‘we will not stop here.’