Dear All,

Update – 28.5.21

As you know, we applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to proceed to judicial review having been refused permission in the High Court.  We have now heard from the Court of Appeal which has refused permission to proceed to judicial review. 

This is disappointing news, without doubt.  It means that the challenge which we made to the government’s decision to remove planning permission requirements from the siting of masts and antennae was unsuccessful.

But, that is not the end of the story.  Some of you know that the efforts to obtain justice for those who suffer from the effects of man-made radiation is a journey.  We have been pushed back on the first step on that journey but we are continuing on that journey.

The government’s consultation on the removal of planning permission has another layer - a step 2 - they have started a technical consultation on how they are going to remove this planning permission.

The technical consultation seeks views on how to implement the proposals consulted on in August 2019 to support the deployment of 5G and extend mobile coverage and is below.  Comments have to be in by 14 June, 2021:

Current Technical Consultation link:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/changes-to-permitted-development-rights-for-electronic-communications-infrastructure-technical-consultation/changes-to-permitted-development-rights-for-electronic-communications-infrastructure-technical-consultation

In refusing permission to proceed to judicial review, the Court of Appeal judge  referenced this from the Government’s consultation response document)*:

“We will undertake a technical consultation on the detail of the proposals, including appropriate environmental protections and other safeguards, prior to amending the existing legislation and will reassess whether there would be a positive or negative, direct or indirect, impact on people with protected characteristics, and update the Public Sector Equalities Duty assessment as necessary.”

Consistent with that, the Technical Consultation document says this (in paragraph 84 and then Question 11):

“Considering the technical detail of the proposals, we would welcome views on the potential impact of the matters raised in this consultation on people with protected characteristics as defined in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010?”

This opportunity gives a second bite at the cherry.  Our barrister, David Wolfe QC, continues to advise our claimant on this matter and has suggested that we invite you all to put in responses.

If there are particular impacts in certain areas, eg, residential areas, areas close to schools etc, then those should be identified.

Depending on how the government then deals with all of that information, we might have a chance at a further legal challenge.

I will be reviewing the documents in the Technical Consultation and will circulate shortly my responses.  You will be welcome to base your responses using mine as a guide. 

We will be working with our barrister to review the government’s continuing response and to obtain legal advice on potentials to challenge.

This continuing legal activity will have costs and to that end, I will be setting up a new fundraising page to address those costs.  We would be grateful for your continued support in relation to those costs.  I hope that you will be able to continue to support these endeavours as generously as you have done in the past and thank you all for your fantastic support so far.

If there are no other opportunities for legal challenge, any funds raised which are not used will be donated to the charity ES-UK.info or other similar charity.  Many of you will know of es-uk which can be found at http://www.es-uk.info/ which provides:

“unbiased and balanced information to help those who have become sensitive to mobile and cordless phones, their masts, wifi, and a multitude of common everyday electrical appliances”.

I will be in touch soon with the details of the new fundraising site and with my comments on the Technical Consultation document so that you can submit your own responses asap.

Yours sincerely,

Jessica Learmond-Criqui

* You may recall that the Government's response to this initial consultation was published in a report in July 2020 which is below:

August 2019 Consultation (Proposed reforms to development rights to support rollout of 5G) - Government response link:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/902836/Government_Response_Mobile_Planning_Consultation.pdf

In the government's response to the initial consultation, at point 62 (page 29 of the report) it states "... The majority of personal respondents expressed concerns in relation to in-principle opposition to the deployment of 5G infrastructure, in particular on grounds relating to public health concerns, and the effects of EMF radiation on the environment, including on wildlife populations." In the summary of this report, at point 5 (page 4) it states "....Having considered the responses to the consultation, we are satisfied that there is evidence to demonstrate that the proposed reforms would have a positive impact..... we will ensure that the appropriate environmental protections and other safeguards are in place to mitigate the impact of new mobile infrastructure...". At point 10 (page 5) it states "In developing the technical consultation, we will work with mobile industry representatives .... including... Ofcom*....."

Just a quick update on the legal action. As you know, we were refused permission to proceed to judicial review in the High Court. Our QC advised that we should appeal and we filed a notice of appeal at the Court of Appeal in December. 

The Court sealed our notice which I received last week. We are awaiting a translation of the transcript of the judgement in the High Court. Once that is ready, perhaps another week or two, then the papers will be sent to the judge. 

The judge will make a ruling on the papers only and without a hearing.

If we are successful in the Court of Appeal, the government may appeal to the Supreme Court.  If they do not, then we will have a full hearing for judicial review in the High Court.  I will keep you posted. 

Thanks as ever for your support.  We are continuing to raise funds which are very much depleted at present.  Do please make donations to the below so that we have enough funds to, at the very least, pay our barrister going forward:

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/5g-judicial-review-2020/

In the meantime, we have had many articles published in the legal press. The link to the latest article in Toddle About is below:

https://toddleabout.co.uk/news/could-the-roll-out-of-5g-negatively-affect-our-health/

Below is a summary of much of the legal press around this case:

• David Wolfe discussed why judicial reviews are so essential to our legal system in The Times.
• Jessica Learmond-Criqui outlined the process of persuading the courts to recognise a new illness in Litigation Futures.
• David Wolfe explained what local governments need to know about consultation responses in Local Government Lawyer.
• In New Law Journal, Jessica Learmond-Criqui examined the government’s decision-making process in relation to the 5G networks. She noted that, shockingly, the ministers making the decision about the 5G rollout were not shown the evidence (collected through a public consultation in 2019) that 5G can negatively impact our health. The piece first published in December and then again in the February edition.
• Jessica Learmond-Criqui and Phillip Watts provided a consumer piece explaining to parents how the 5G rollout could impact our health in Toddle About.
• Jessica Learmond-Criqui used the 5G Judicial Review to outline how to get a new disability recognised in the law in Solicitors Journal.
• Jessica Learmond-Criqui’s involvement in challenging the government over its 5G strategy was summarised in Edward Fennell’s Legal Diary.

Do see the article which I wrote in the New Law Journal published on 30 December, 2020.

https://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/content/network-de-railed-

Dear All,

I am providing an update of where we are on this litigation.

Today, we had 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 in this round.  For the reasons below, we have, therefore, 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):

• 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;
• 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:

• 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;
• re the claim for breach of the PSED, he said that there was no flaw in the approach taken by the Defendants, namely that:
• 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);
• 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 visit the site below and to continue to provide funding for this case:

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/5g-judicial-review-2020/

The legal campaign can be found here:

www.5gemfreview2020.com

Best Regards,

Jessica

Dear All,

You will recall that my legal campaign is to, among other things, change government policy on the roll out of 5G – details of the campaign are at www.5gemfreview2020.com.   

During the time that our legal team has been considering taking legal action against the Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Care and Public Health England, the government has made the decision to remove the need for planning permission for masts, antennae and equipment.  

Do see further below. 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/902836/Government_Response_Mobile_Planning_Consultation.pdf

They did this after consulting with the public over permitted development rights (“PDR”) which ended in November, 2019.   That would mean, among other things, that planning permission would no longer be needed for masts, antennae and equipment which can then be erected in town centres, neighbourhoods and conservation areas at will and mobile service providers can proliferate this equipment across the country with no oversight by anyone. 

The decision includes proposals to “Enable higher new masts to deliver better mobile coverage and mast sharing, subject to prior approval and specified limits”.  It is not clear what this means but I have already seen a number of applications for massive 60 foot structures with multiple masts on them currently being made and from this decision it looks like it will be made easier for these types of structures to proliferate in our neighbourhoods. 

Our legal team obtained some copies of objections to the PDR public consultation which demonstrated the overwhelming submissions of adverse health consequences to humans, bees, trees and birds from such a reckless proposal.  The government’s decision barely commented on such representations quoting the usual PHE stance which is known to be deeply flawed and unfit for purpose.  

 A key part of the legal campaign is to change government policy on the roll out of 5G.  Therefore, our legal team has decided to challenge this decision making process through the medium of judicial review promptly and, to that end, have sent a letter before action to the Secretaries of State for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport and for the Department of Housing, Communities and Local Government.  Do see it below. 

https://www.scribd.com/document/473627506/LCS-Practice-letter-to-DCMS-and-DHCLG-final-as-sent-21-8-20-pdf 

Our legal team continues to consider taking legal action against DHSC/PHE. While I have seen some objections to the PDR consultation, if any of you made objections, please send them to me asap at [email protected] as they may be helpful in any eventual legal action. 

I know that some of you have contributed hugely and generously already.  And you would be right to think that a one off contribution should suffice.  But, the problem with this situation is that it is like an onion, with many layers and one has to peel off each layer of the onion skin to get at the different parts which form this brutal and inhumane treatment of humanity and our environment.  You have all so far been fantastic.  I am trying to do all that I can, but I cannot do this alone. 

Finally, I will write to you more later about this – but the UK government has just spent £500m (on 27 July) investing in the bankrupt OneWeb which was building 5G satellites for 45% of the company.  The government made this investment against the advice of the UK Space Agency and of the relevant department’s Accounting Officer who said that the investment was not “value for money”.  A shocking waste of taxpayer’s money. 

A company has just got planning permission to build a space port in Scotland and the government has given permission for satellites to be launched from that port.  The UK Space Agency has been working on a plan to launch 5G satellites over the UK at least since 2018 that I can find.  I will send more information on this with links to read soon.   

In the meantime, there are three immediate actions we need to take: 

- Object to the UK government’s investment in OneWeb; 

- Object to OneWeb’s new filing (since the UK government invested in the bankrupt company) to launch 42,000 satellites (to match SpaceX’s permission also to launch 42,000 satellites); and 

- Make representations on a consultation opened until October about legislation for satellites which would include 5G satellites. 

There is much work to do and not much time in which to do it.  I will send more about these objections etc later. 

While some funds have been raised already, it is still below halfway to the £150,000 which I am trying to raise for this campaign.   

Please go to either of the pages below and donate what you can, including making a monthly contribution so that the fund can be built up to address these issues and issues similar to these to achieve the overall objective.  

Even a regular monthly donation of say £10 or more a month will move us towards the target. 

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/5g-judicial-review-2020/ 

Please tell your friends and spread the word. 

Best Regards,

Jessica Learmond-Criqui

Further to Arthur Firstenberg’s email below, if you wish to attend the talk you need to register.  I have extracted the relevant details below.  

NATIONAL MEETING ABOUT SATELLITES, AUGUST 13

On Thursday, August 13, 2020, from 7 to 9 PM EDT (2300 to 0100 UTC), Americans for Responsible Technology will host a meeting about the 5G satellites on Zoom that will be simulcast on Facebook. In the first hour, four presenters will speak for 15 minutes each:

Ben Levi, technology consultant, will summarize the current satellite situation. Where are we now, and what is forecast over the next few years?

Joe Sandri has a law degree and has training and experience in radiofrequency engineering. He will describe how the satellites work. How will a typical 5G transmission use the satellites? What kinds of earth stations will be required?

Arthur Firstenberg will talk about the impact of the satellites on people and the environment. How will the electrical environment of the earth be altered by constant transmission of 5G signals?

Julian Gresser, attorney, will address what is being done legally to stop this. What right does the FCC or any other agency have to authorize the use of space for private commercial interests? What are the legal and ethical principles involved?

The second hour of the meeting will consist of a discussion among the presenters, followed by questions from the online audience, which will include members of the press.

Attend by Zoom (limited space). Participants must register in advance: https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZwkdeqoqjIiGNx6dqXjti7HrZHqle3LNwrH 

Watch on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/events/1176845649355076 

I have been working hard on preparation of the case and getting information to our barrister.  I am still in that process and will let you know when I have news to report.

In the meantime, we have now raised £67,488 being £61,364 on the Crowdjustice platform and £6,124 sent directly as at 9.7.20 @ 22:23.

We still need to get to £150,000 so any help you can give would be very much appreciated.

Some of you would have heard the BBC 4 File on 4 report last night at 8pm which was titled “The 5G con that could make you sick”. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000k2mj

It pitched the impressive Devra Devis against David Grimes who denies there is any harm from 5G. Then it addresses the sale of expensive products which are marketed to those concerned about EMFs. Some of you may have been disappointed with the reporting of this serious subject.

I would like to juxtaposition that case against 2 Episodes of Judge John Deed in which he considers the case of a nurse suffering from brain damage from use of a mobile phone. The industry at the time is said to be making £10 – 15bn in revenues. This was back in Mar 2011.

Below are the episodes which are very realistic and entertaining. There are twists and turns but ultimately, the nurse dies from the brain tumour and a settlement is reached.  The arguments presented about the dangers of using mobile phones are realistic.

If you do watch, have fun. 

First section on ‘Health Hazard’ on Series 3 – Episode 1 Part ½ - there are ads regularly but you can skip them when invited to do so.

Part 1 – start 16.20 mins in for the start of the case on the nurse

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6ozsdf

Part II – Episode 1 Part 2/2

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6ozhu8

The case probably continues in other episodes but the climax is in Episode 4:

Then the case continues with Episode 4

Part I - Second section on ‘Economic Imperative’- Series 3, Episode 4 - Part 1/2

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6fejvc

Part II of ‘Economic Imperative’ – Series 3, Episode 4 – Part 2/2

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6ozmrt

Below is a review of the series 3

Judge John Deed – Series 3 – BBC

https://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/46888/judge-john-deed-season-three/

The first two series of Judge John Deed consisted of self-contained episodes. Here, the four shows are bit more serialized, insofar as the two biggest cases are spread across the four shows, though highlighted in one episode each. The first involves a Member of Parliament charged with mowing down a mother and her two children with his car while recklessly talking on his mobile phone. The second follows the case of a young mother with a brain tumor versus the mobile phone company she believes knowingly put unsafe product onto the market that ultimately caused her terminal illness. One gets the feeling creator-writer G.F. Newman is not a big fan of mobile phones.

The season gets bogged down first in Jo Mills's disciplinary hearing, a potentially career-ending crisis generated by Deed's enemies to discredit him, and later by the usual attempts by them to gain leverage in the politically/economically delicate trials Deed hears. His on-again, off-again romance with Jo, instead of being romantic merely tests the audience's patience. That said, things do get interesting when Deed, in claiming to want a long-term relationship with Jo, begins outpatient therapy hoping to put an end to his womanizing. His efforts are half-hearted however and, predictably, he winds up sleeping with his exotic-looking therapist (Amita Dhiri, The Bill).

The final show of the set is by all odds the best, as it explores the real problems of corporate greed putting profits ahead of public safety; of the willingness of scientists and universities to be bought off when they don't deliver the scientific results the big corporations want; big corporations transparently suppressing data about the safety (or not) of their products; and the lengths they will go to discredit their critics. (Spoilers) As extravagantly theatrical as his characters often are, Newman gets equal credit for taking bold and specific stands (in this case: cell phones are bad for human health and should be taken off the market) and for showing how big corporations will resort to dirty tricks to protect their interests. In a last-ditch effort to get the case thrown out, the phone company infiltrates Deed's computer, uploading child pornography onto its hard-drive. Then they call the cops. It doesn't get any worse.

As always, Martin Shaw is a delight as Deed; his rakish charm and intelligence serve the character well. It's really amazing that he's almost completely unknown in America.

if you are interested in how 5G affects our bodies, this video is a must see. It is a brilliant over-view of the nature of our bodies and brings to life the reasons for concern about electromagnetic fields caused by telecoms equipment and infrastructure including mobiles, laptops, ipads, airpods, Bluetooth speakers and the like.

https://scientists4wiredtech.com/russell-witte-primer/

or

https://youtu.be/qN6CEs0krKM

If you are not yet persuaded about concerns being expressed, do watch this as it is informative.

It explains in easy to understand terms the electrical nature of our bodies. It also highlights the dangers of holding mobile phones on our bodies as this breaches the terms of the phone companies which is buried deep in their terms and conditions.

I hope you enjoy it as much as I did - it is 1.5 hours so do put aside some time.

We now have £38,933 on the crowdjustice site.  This is a fantastic endeavour and I encourage you all to continue to spread the word far and wide.

I thought that it may interest you to know that yesterday, there was an inaugural online meeting of lawyers around the world, all working on fighting the roll out of 5G and the satellites which will dowse the earth with radiofrequency radiation.  There were at least 30 lawyers in the session.  There is a tremendous movement to help each other during these times. 

There is a momentum which is building which is exciting and encouraging.  We do need to get to £150,000 so please continue to help as much as you can.

Some of you have asked why I am charging £200 per hour for the solicitor's work which needs to be done in this case.  Others have suggested that I should reduce the charge more or donate my time at no cost to do the soliciting work on this case.

But any person thinking of taking action of this type will have to instruct one or more solicitors.  It  is unlikely that any solicitor suitable for this case will work at no cost and more likely that they will charge much more than £200 per hour plus VAT.

The £150,000 target is set as low as possible given that there will be barrister costs (we will have 2), expert witnesses, Claimant witnesses, preparation of evidence and, ultimately between 2 - 4 weeks in court with costs if the case is not successful. The government will have their own expert and other witnesses and a tremendous amount of work will have to be done in relation to their evidence and witness information. This case may take between 6 months and 2 years, depending on the court schedule, preparation time and delays in the system. 

As I am a lawyer, I will be doing the solicitor’s work and have been transparent about what that may cost.  I am doing it as cheaply as possible for the solicitor's work involved for a case such as this. 

Do see the news article below referring to our crowdfunding appeal.

https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/hampstead-woman-jessica-learmond-criqui-s-crowdfunder-to-stop-5g-1-6655967

I understand that some people are having trouble donating to this page.

If you are having trouble, please email [email protected] who will help you to trouble shoot the problem asap.

Some people have asked for a video explaining the dangers of 5G.  Below is a video prepared by Professor Tom Butler on the Understanding of the Health Risks of Wireless Technologies (which includes 5G).  I had organised a talk by Prof Butler which was postponed by the lockdown, but Prof Butler has kindly prepared his lecture which is below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afhLqExpuFE&t=383s

As many people are at home trying to work or do schoolwork, they will be using wifi for their laptops, ipads and mobiles in addition to the fields from telecoms masts. Electromagnetic radiation is created from the use of 3G, 4G and now 5G. This radiation, while invisible and unfelt, has damaging effects on humans, plants etc. The levels used by telecoms companies as approved by the government are too high and result in a number of physical and mental symptoms and illnesses.

Masts and antennae are proliferating across the country at an exponential rate.  We are being bathed in an EMF soup.

Prof Butler explains why the current levels are too high and the impact on our health and that of our children and he questions how our government and Public Health England can deem these technologies to be safe.  Do watch if you can.

Some of you are new to the debate on the health impact of 5G.  So, to help you I have set out below various links to documents which I and others have prepared which sets out the health issues of radiofrequency radiation issues generally which includes 5G.

I sent these documents to the Secretary of State for the UK Department of Health and Social Care and to Public Health England with a letter before action (which I have not included here).  But these materials will help you to understand why this case is so important.  If you are just becoming acquainted with these issues, do just read my note to start.

I am prepared to do all I can to help in this endeavour and to put my shoulder to the wheel, but I cannot do this without you.  So, do continue to share this fundraising site far and wide. 

Many thanks for your support which is deeply appreciated.

My note

https://www.scribd.com/document/460615982/JLC-Note-Re-5G-Health-Impact-Briefings-4-11-19?secret_password=Os4lvH2JGQRW1JPR82GB

Schedules to my note

https://www.scribd.com/document/460616041/JLC-Note-Re-5G-Health-Impact-Briefings-Schedules-4-11-19

Article on clear evidence of risks to children from smartphones and wifi

https://www.scribd.com/document/460616081/On-the-Clear-Evidence-of-the-Risks-to-Children-From-Smartphone-and-WiFi-Radio-Frequency-Radiation-Final-2019?secret_password=t4YWewcCQ7UoZauduYgg

Full Ecolog study for T Mobile (now owned by BT plc and part of EE) in 2000

https://www.scribd.com/document/460616287/Full-Ecolog-Study-in-English

Appendices to Ecolog study

https://www.scribd.com/document/456107862/T-Mobile-Ecolog-Study-Appendices-A-D

NASA paper on harm from EMFs

https://www.scribd.com/document/460616417/NASA-Paper?secret_password=R2wVvgO5Ng5RVvqTCGTY