FAQ

We seek a judicial review.

A judicial review is a means of challenging the decision making (or lack of a decision) of a public body. There are limited grounds which can be used, and there are limited remedies which the court can grant. It is important to note that judicial review is not a trial of facts, nor is it an appeal. It is a remedy of last resort, and it is intended to be the ultimate mechanism by which governments are held to account in relation to their decision making.

In the first instance, a letter before action is sent to the public body in question seeking rectification of the problem within 14 days. If that does not elicit a satisfactory response, then an application is lodged at the Administrative Court for a single judge to consider whether to grant permission. This procedure is done on paper only; there is (usually) no hearing. If permission is refused it is possible to ‘renew’ the application for permission – this is by attending court to advance oral arguments (or by video link, as is now common practice during the pandemic). If permission is granted, whether on the papers or after a renewal hearing, the court will make directions about the exchange of documents and preparation for a full hearing. Full hearings deal with the discrete points of law which form the basis of the challenge, so are much quicker than trials.

After a full hearing the court will often reserve judgment, which means that the decisions and reasons for it may not be given on the day. If a judicial review is successful the court has the power to make several orders; it can make a declaration, quash a decision/decisions, make a mandatory order requiring a government to do something and/or an order prohibiting a government body from doing something; an injunction, and damages.

Timescales between the lodging of a judicial review application to the ultimate conclusion can vary substantially depending on the urgency of the matter, the complexity of the arguments, the number of parties, and the court’s backlog of cases. The current pandemic has inevitably created additional delays. If cases are urgent, however, there are procedures in place to ensure that they are identified and prioritised accordingly.

Our case addresses three Secretaries of State for the UK and Public Health
England and calls for a moratorium on 5G throughout the UK. A successful
outcome will have positive ramifications throughout the United Kingdom.

We will post case updates on our CrowdJustice fundraising page and more
detailed reports on our blog.

You can also be updated by signing onto our email list. Look for the ‘Sign Up’
form at the foot of our website pages.

We are receiving excellent support from the alternative media. This subject is
not widely covered, without a certain bias, in the mainstream media but we trust
that the publicity for this case will itself invite a wider and more open and balanced
public debate.