Update 9.12.20

Today, we attended a hearing in the High Court to determine if we would be permitted to proceed with our application for Judicial Review against the government’s decision to remove planning permission from masts, antennae and its equipment throughout the UK.  Judge Sir Ross Cranston refused our application.  But, for the reasons below, we have taken steps to lodge an appeal with the Court of Appeal as soon as possible. 

You will recall that we had issued proceedings on the basis that the decision makers (being the Secretaries of State of the Department of Culture, Media and Sport and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government): 

(a)          did not give ‘conscientious consideration’ to the responses, over 1,000 of which (out of 1,800 total responses) were based on adverse health impacts of 5G, let alone the detailed and specific information supporting them or the technical and other information to which they referred so that the decision was not based on compliance with the requirements of a lawful consultation and was unlawful; 

(b)          breached their ‘public sector equality duty’ (“PSED”) under the Equality Act 2010 as there is nothing to suggest, let alone show, that the decisionmakers even engaged with the fact that particular sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation, including from 5G in particular, amounts to a disability (EHS) for the purposes of the PSED. 

In brief, Judge Cranston determined that: 

(a)          health impacts were not within the remit of the consultation document which meant that the government did not have to “conscientiously consider” comments made on health grounds.  In any event, the Secretaries of State were entitled to be take advice from Public Health England on the health comments made by consultees and could rely on that advice which was that there was no harm from 5G, in making their decision.  He also said that if there was nothing in the consultee responses which changed the scientific advice (which the defendants said that PHE told them that it did not), then there was no need to go behind it;  

(b)          re the claim for breach of the PSED, he said that there was no flaw in the approach taken by the Defendants, namely that: 

(i)            there is the “lack of scientific consensus on the link between 5G and negative health effects which the Claimant believes exists” (submissions put forward by the Defendants which he accepted); 

(ii)          the equality impact assessment which stated that although the health risks were out of scope, the advice from PHE was that there was no new scientific evidence in the consultee responses so that their advice that there was no harm remained unchanged and the EIA concluded that in light of PHE’s advice it did not consider that there were any potential impacts which needed mitigating. 

For the above reasons Judge Cranston concluded that he did not think that the claim was arguable and he would refuse it. 

We have discussed the judgement with our barrister who has advised that an appeal to the Court of Appeal is appropriate.   

We do need funds to continue fighting this matter and would invite you to press the donate button below and to continue to provide funding for this case: