The Administrative Court of the King’s Bench Division of the High Court has handed down the Court’s judgment on our judicial review hearing. It is our duty to inform supporters that the Honourable Mrs Justice Stacey’s judgment was not in our favour. We need properly to review the judgment before offering detailed commentary and opinions.
We were granted permission on the basis that there is a potential failure in the duty to communicate risk*.
We were not permitted to challenge ‘contested scientific matters’, which amounted to a plethora of peer-reviewed science we presented that remained unexamined and unacknowledged. We were not able to challenge the Government’s interpretation of scientific evidence. We were not permitted to argue that the Government had failed to review scientific evidence. We were not permitted to argue that the Government had failed to undertake a proper assessment of 5G risks. Overall, we were not permitted to question the Government’s approach to regulation of 5G and we were not permitted to challenge the Government’s adoption of the ICNIRP guideline.
Our argument was that the Government was not entitled to tell the public there was no risk from 5G namely that it was safe (see judgment point 77 below). Adopting a ‘guideline’ which describes ‘expectations of safety’, whose authors confess their guideline is based on incomplete research of multiple possible health outcomes does not translate to ‘5G is safe’. The description ‘5G is safe’ even without the qualification ‘within the guideline’ was never employed in the ICNIRP’s literature upon which the Government claimed it had based its advice to the public.
‘5G is safe’ is blatantly at best a misleading oversimplification even when argued from the extremely narrow grounds we were granted when our peer-reviewed science and expert reports confirming biological and health effects remain in the wings.
The most the Government can say is that they do not know what the likelihood of harm is. Notably, but not exclusively, ICNIRP Appendix B on IMMUNE SYSTEM AND HAEMATOLOGY cannot possibly found a basis for assertions of safety for the many who are immunocompromised. Absence of confirmation of harms to immunity seen in animals due to research not yet scientifically conducted in humans is not proof of safety.
No account has been taken for ICNIRP’s exclusion of risks to the public with metal implants and medical devices, which amounts to setting aside a vast percentage of the population, notably all children with dental brackets and those with pacemakers.
To say 5G is safe, one would have to prove 5G is safe but the fact is that 5G has not been scientifically tested for safety in real life exposure conditions. Denying the evidence does not refute it or make it go away. Only very recently have two studies been published by Lennart Hardell et al, clearly evidencing harms to those living under 5G antennae placed on their apartment building, both published after our initial evidence bundle was prepared leaving these too remaining in the wings.
The Government’s core premise that 5G is fundamentally the same as 4G, presented by the defendants, was accepted by Judge Stacey which again reflected a dismissal of clear irrefutable facts which were well evidenced.
We argued that unchallenged evidence of serious harm to a range of individuals arising from and only from, presence within RF fields of electromagnetic radiation, especially 5G, is a risk that requires a public health warning.
The point of this case might be questioned by some given, after several applications and appeals, the increasing narrowness of the allowable legal arguments, but something of great importance has emerged.
This judgment reveals that the Government has now adopted a position whereupon it will decide what will be classified as ‘disinformation’, and in this case by implication, it has ascribed peer-reviewed scientific evidence ‘disinformation’.
At point 76: ‘It is uncontroversial that clear and accurate public information and guidance is extremely and increasingly important to counter inaccurate rumours, disinformation and unfounded conspiracy theories which are so easily spread on social media’.
The above statement has great relevance in the wider context; demonstrating that a Government position decides upon what factually based (or other) evidence it will or will not allow to prevail. Here revealed is the determination of the Government to decide upon ‘accuracy’ of information and then, based on what information it believes ‘dangerous’ to the population, will categorise it as ‘rumours, disinformation and unfounded conspiracy theories.’ It further discloses that information that does not conform to the Government position must be actively ‘countered.’ We do not accept that this situation is in any way ‘uncontroversial’.
The judgment discloses the will of Government to censor, firstly by omission and secondly through repression and countering measures, information and accumulated knowledge to which people have right of access and without which we will be subject to oppression and dictatorship.
The living experience of the population, if it does not conform, is to be and is already, actively discredited.
Supporters of this case who live in the vicinity of a RF emitting mast might consider this point as demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue: Point 77. ‘Although it [the Government] believes 5G is safe, out of an abundance of caution and on conservative principles it has suggested that those who are worried could, for example unplug the router at night, or not sleep with their mobile phone by their bed and to use their device further away from their body.’ Cold comfort indeed for those many people who have written to us describing how their lives and health have been ruined by exposure to radiation from nearby masts!
We are now carefully considering this judgment and will report back to you. Thank you for all your wonderful messages and unswerving support, for which we are hugely grateful.
AA5G Team
*Note: The grounds for the judicial review were extremely narrow and constrained, they were: 1.) failure to provide adequate or effective information about 5G risks and their mitigation; 2.) failure to justify the lack of any process to investigate 5G health risks; and 3.) failure to meet the transparency standards required of a public body.